No discussion on the theater shooting?

[zitothebrave]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

He should never be free. Who the **** shoots someone for throwing pop corn at them. Fake ass thug.

[Krgrecw]

Fake ass thug?
Dude was an old white guy


If the other guy had not be an asshole: a) texting while the movie played b) belittling the guy because he went to tell on him and c) threw popcorn at him none of this would had happened

Dude was wrong for shooting but it's not like the other guy was some innocent victim.

[jpx7]

No discussion on the theater shooting?

It's ****ing Florida—what else is there to say or discuss?

[50PoundHead]

Not to make light of the tragedy, but this event surely lends itself to an effective "don't text" message prior to the movie. Have Yosemite Sam blow Bugs Bunny away when he won't stop texting.

Seriously though (and I read this in one of the new stories), a fellow movie attendee asked "Why would anyone bring a gun to a movie?" My sentiments exactly. I don't give two hoots about guns. Own as many as you want. But seriously, who feels a need to carry at the local movie theater?

[zitothebrave]

Fake ass thug?
Dude was an old white guy


If the other guy had not be an asshole: a) texting while the movie played b) belittling the guy because he went to tell on him and c) threw popcorn at him none of this would had happened

Dude was wrong for shooting but it's not like the other guy was some innocent victim.

So old white people can't be thugs?

Dude, the guy shot someone, as long as his life wasn't in danger there is no justification to ever shoot someone. People are jerks all of the time, doesn't mean he should have shot someone.

So yes he's an innocent victim, he did nothing to deserve being shot, he's innocent. Was he a dick? Yeah. Would I have fought him, maybe. Did he deserve to be shot and killed? Hell no.

[Krgrecw]

Well 50, if someone had a gun in Aurora, Colorado, it could had ended differently

[zitothebrave]

Well 50, if someone had a gun in Aurora, Colorado, it could had ended differently

That's a crock of ****. You don't know what will happen. Maybe it's worse. Playing the what if game in a tragedy like that is stupid and heartless.

[Krgrecw]

So you admit the guy was being a dick and you probably would had fought him so how is he an innocent victim?

[zitothebrave]

So you admit the guy was being a dick and you probably would had fought him so how is he an innocent victim?

Yes he is an innocent victim. He did not deserve to be shot. Hence innocent

[Krgrecw]

No one knows how the Colorado theatre shooting would had ended up if someone in there had a gun.
Could had been worse but if someone who was proficient with a gun had one, it probably could had ended better.

[50PoundHead]

Well 50, if someone had a gun in Aurora, Colorado, it could had ended differently

Yep, there would have been more dead people.

[Krgrecw]

an innocent victim is a victim who is injured or killed with having nothing to do with the violent scenario. You just said the guy was an asshole and you would had gotten into a fight with him.

You can't be an innocent victim when you were the aggressor

[weso1]

Ban popcorn?

[Julio3000]

No one knows how the Colorado theatre shooting would had ended up if someone in there had a gun.
Could had been worse but if someone who was proficient with a gun had one, it probably could had ended better.

I think it's just as easy to point to this situation as being exemplary of what would happen if more people were routinely rolling around public places strapped.

[jpx7]

Ban popcorn?

You can pry those kernels out of my slick, buttery hands.

[Julio3000]

Ban popcorn?

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a popcorn bag . . .

[weso1]

You can pry those kernels out of my slick, buttery hands.

That should be pretty easy actually.

[TURBO]

This theater is like 20 minutes from my house. Its the one I always go to. Crazy it being so close.

[Dalyn]

Not to make light of the tragedy, but this event surely lends itself to an effective "don't text" message prior to the movie. Have Yosemite Sam blow Bugs Bunny away when he won't stop texting.

Seriously though (and I read this in one of the new stories), a fellow movie attendee asked "Why would anyone bring a gun to a movie?" My sentiments exactly. I don't give two hoots about guns. Own as many as you want. But seriously, who feels a need to carry at the local movie theater?

I have a feeling when he went out to 'get the manager' but returned without one, he actually went to his car for a gun. If so, I hope they find out and nail him for first-degree murder instead of second.

[gilesfan]

Yep, there would have been more dead people.

Hopefully the dude shooting up the place before.

[zitothebrave]

No one knows how the Colorado theatre shooting would had ended up if someone in there had a gun.
Could had been worse but if someone who was proficient with a gun had one, it probably could had ended better.

If an armed US Marine/Army, etc was in there you may have a point. Dude was lobbing tear gas into the crown in a dark theater, lots of screaming people around. That's not a quite trigger pull at a range.

[50PoundHead]

Hopefully the dude shooting up the place before.

Yeah, him and about ten other people most likely.

Again, I have nothing against responsible gun ownership. I think a lot of people on the left break out in hives when guns are brought up and I don't really know why. I think it's actually the aesthetic more than anything else.

Just a little anecdote. Most everyone here knows I'm a lobbyist working primarily with public schools. Last session, in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, there was a raft of anti-gun bills (all but one of which died) floating around the legislature. I was leaving one of the committees I was covering right before the multitude of gun-control opponents/proponents flooded the room. I was gathering up my stuff when the police chief from a small suburb that I do some work with sat down. I asked him what he thought about the proposal to let principals/teachers carry weapons. He didn't know me from Adam, but he gave me one of the best-reasoned responses to the issue I have heard and it stuck with me. Think of life as being a scale of zero-to-sixty with zero being calm and sixty being danger. Most people are at zero (or close to it) most of the time. Cops are at about 30 when they are on duty and 20 when they are off duty. To expect someone who is not trained (and I mean someone who is simply able to pass a test and carry a permit) to put themselves into a dangerous situation and succeed is an extremely dicey proposition. It would be like going from zero-to-sixty in no time flat. It is difficult enough for cops to go from thirty-to-sixty, but they are trained to detect and react to situations that may turn tense (and sometimes dangerous). To ask someone to go from saying "Hey, the Dark Knight is really cool" to assessing a situation in a dark theater as to where a shooter is and how to put one's self into a position to take down the shooter without recklessly endangering the lives of other movie-goers is a hard sell to me.

I don't think gun owners are necessarily arrogant. But I believe the notion that "if I--or someone else--had only had my--their--gun, things would have been different," as in the "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is for a good guy to have a gun" is really an arrogant proposition. It simply suspends reality and as a result is wishful thinking.

[zitothebrave]

an innocent victim is a victim who is injured or killed with having nothing to do with the violent scenario. You just said the guy was an asshole and you would had gotten into a fight with him.

You can't be an innocent victim when you were the aggressor

He had nothing to do with a scenario where someone had to use deadly force, he's innocent. If he brandished a knife or was beating him within an inch of his life you have a point. Being snark, yelling,a dn throwing popcorn doesn't make him not innocent. Even being a dick and even if we fought I wouldn't use deadly force on him. He wasn't the aggressor, he was a dick, the aggressor was the person who escalated from a verbal altercation with a minor assault to a gun fight. That's the aggressor. Not the dick.

[goldfly]

if it was over someone texting while in a movie

like i heard originally


i would most likely let the guy walk if i was on the jury

[Hawk]

He had nothing to do with a scenario where someone had to use deadly force, he's innocent. If he brandished a knife or was beating him within an inch of his life you have a point. Being snark, yelling,a dn throwing popcorn doesn't make him not innocent. Even being a dick and even if we fought I wouldn't use deadly force on him. He wasn't the aggressor, he was a dick, the aggressor was the person who escalated from a verbal altercation with a minor assault to a gun fight. That's the aggressor. Not the dick.

No, he was the aggressor because he threw a bag of popcorn at somebody. Like it or not, that's assault. You are entitled to defend yourself at that point. Guy that got shot was a dumb ass, not saying he deserved to die. It's sad that his daughter will grow up without her father because he couldn't keep his manhood in check.

[zitothebrave]

No, he was the aggressor because he threw a bag of popcorn at somebody. Like it or not, that's assault. You are entitled to defend yourself at that point. Guy that got shot was a dumb ass, not saying he deserved to die. It's sad that his daughter will grow up without her father because he couldn't keep his manhood in check.

Throwing popcorn is at best simple assault. Most cops would probably not even bother bringing someone in on it. You are not entitled to use deadly force.

[The Chosen One]

Also, wasn't the Aurora shooter wearing heavy armor as well?

I remember reading he was wearing some heavy stuff.

You or I bringing a pistol with a few rounds, probably would've have saved that guy.

[Hawk]

Throwing popcorn is at best simple assault. Most cops would probably not even bother bringing someone in on it. You are not entitled to use deadly force.

Throwing popcorn was the trigger event, but the guy was being held back by his wife which seems to demonstrate to me a continued escalation of aggression. Combine that with being in a dark theater and not being able to fully analyze the threat. The shooter's response was certainly reactionary but far from murderous.

Don't start physical **** with somebody unless you are prepared to reap the consequences, legal or not.

[Dalyn]

:facepalm:

[Hawk]

Also, wasn't the Aurora shooter wearing heavy armor as well?

I remember reading he was wearing some heavy stuff.

You or I bringing a pistol with a few rounds, probably would've have saved that guy.

No, but it could have scared him away or incapacitated him (which would have perhaps prevented him from killing 12 people wholly unimpeded).

[zitothebrave]

Throwing popcorn was the trigger event, but the guy was being held back by his wife which seems to demonstrate to me a continued escalation of aggression. Combine that with being in a dark theater and not being able to fully analyze the threat. The shooter's response was certainly reactionary but far from murderous.

Don't start physical **** with somebody unless you are prepared to reap the consequences, legal or not.

No him texting was the trigger event. From CNN

"Charles Cummings and his adult son were two seats away. Cummings said that when Reeves returned to the theater, there was no manager with him.
"He came back very irritated," Cummings recalled."

And then

"Voices were raised. Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, police said. Then, the former police officer took out a .380 semi-automatic handgun and shot Oulson."

And

"Voices were raised. Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, police said. Then, the former police officer took out a .380 semi-automatic handgun and shot Oulson."

I dunno about you man, but I don't consider throwing popcorn to starting "physical ****" that's like saying someoen poured a beer on their head so it's cool to shoot them.

I have not read a report that he was being held back by his wife, but who knows. As far as the setting, you're right, but it's not an excuse for deadly force. Unless he was able to see a brandished weapon, there's no reason for deadly force.

Deadly force is the key, using deadly force as any cop would tell you is a last resort. For this guy it was his first resort, not a good thing.

[zitothebrave]

No, but it could have scared him away or incapacitated him (which would have perhaps prevented him from killing 12 people wholly unimpeded).

Or he could have entered a state of panic and fired even more rounds into the audience and killed more people. You're again just aimlessly speculating. No one provoked him maybe that kept his kill count down. No one knows what would happen, we do know that someone entered a theater armed and killed someone that wouldn't have happened if he didn't bring that pistol.

[Dalyn]

Good thing it jammed. I doubt he would've stopped firing. At the very least, he would've shot the wife.

[zitothebrave]

Good thing it jammed. I doubt he would've stopped firing. At the very least, he would've shot the wife.

That's almost as speculative as someone armed could have saved lives in Aurora. Speculation when it comes to events like this brings nothing to the table.

[Dalyn]

That's almost as speculative as someone armed could have saved lives in Aurora. Speculation when it comes to events like this brings nothing to the table.

So is saying he wouldn't have killed anyone if he didn't have the pistol. So is saying cops wouldn't bring him in for throwing popcorn. etc etc Lots of speculation going on. That's part of any discussion like this.

[Hawk]

No him texting was the trigger event.

I dunno about you man, but I don't consider throwing popcorn to starting "physical ****" that's like saying someoen poured a beer on their head so it's cool to shoot them.

I have not read a report that he was being held back by his wife, but who knows. As far as the setting, you're right, but it's not an excuse for deadly force. Unless he was able to see a brandished weapon, there's no reason for deadly force.

Deadly force is the key, using deadly force as any cop would tell you is a last resort. For this guy it was his first resort, not a good thing.

There are a couple of elements that I would hone in on if I were a member of the defense:

- The shooter was 71-years old (the victim 30 years his junior). The trauma of having a bucket of popcorn thrown at a man that age is exponentially greater. It could have damaged his eye, or caused him to go into cardiac arrest. As the theater was dark he probably did not realize immediately that it was popcorn that hit him. He could have thought it was any number of things.

- The shooter was a trained SWAT police officer -- clearly he understands the virtues of deadly force -- so an argument could easily be sustained that he did view himself as being in danger of grievous bodily harm, especially given the inherent flimsiness of Florida's self-defense laws.

- The article says that the victim's wife suffered a gunshot wound to the hand because she was trying to calm her husband down (by reaching her hand across his chest, presumably to hold him back.) Again, we don't see any violence from the shooter until he pulls the trigger, but we have two fairly straightforward instances of outward aggression on the part of the victim before that moment.

As for the beer thing, that's really my entire point. You pour a beer over somebody's head when you are in an argument, what do you expect to happen? You've opened yourself up to any number of things based on the insecurity of the person you assaulted. Nevertheless, you instigated -- and in the state of nature, especially Hobbes', just about anything could happen. Rule of thumb: don't be an unrepentant asshat, or you just might wind up getting shot and killed by a guy who will, in all likelihood, be acquitted (and considered a hero by some).

[Hawk]

Or he could have entered a state of panic and fired even more rounds into the audience and killed more people. You're again just aimlessly speculating. No one provoked him maybe that kept his kill count down. No one knows what would happen, we do know that someone entered a theater armed and killed someone that wouldn't have happened if he didn't bring that pistol.

It was not just a pistol, though. It was a host of weapons; smoke grenades, explosives, and a full compliment of tactical gear. His apartment was full of homemade grenades and gasoline. This guy wanted to kill and he was going to do it by any means necessary.

It may be speculation, but it's earnest and grounded in reality. Guns are just as much deterrents as they are threats, and unless all the guns are gone (an improbable pipe dream), you always want to have balance.

[jpx7]

The mere fact that you invoked that asshat Hobbes virtually invalidates your position as far as I'm concerned. The "state of Nature" is such a laughable fiction--that you employ it for formulating "rules of thumb," and as anything beyond a fun little discursive hypothetical, is pretty rich.

[zitothebrave]

It was not just a pistol, though. It was a host of weapons; smoke grenades, explosives, and a full compliment of tactical gear. His apartment was full of homemade grenades and gasoline. This guy wanted to kill and he was going to do it by any means necessary.

It may be speculation, but it's earnest and grounded in reality. Guns are just as much deterrents as they are threats, and unless all the guns are gone (an improbable pipe dream), you always want to have balance.

Sorry should have made it clear, the someone in my example is the topic of the thread, not the aurora shooter.

I'm not for banning guns, but I am for gun reform, mainly my common opinion is that someone has to go through a police type of training to own one and the crimes for using/possessing an unregistered weapon should be stronger. If you're not mentally fit to own a weapon, you shouldn't.

[jpx7]

Moreover: whether the legal process convicts or acquits this shooter, any observer who hails him a hero is the worst kind of fool.

[weso1]

Also, wasn't the Aurora shooter wearing heavy armor as well?

I remember reading he was wearing some heavy stuff.

You or I bringing a pistol with a few rounds, probably would've have saved that guy.

It usually takes about 10-15 shots to knock the armor off and then another 5-10 shots to bring the guy down. At least this is my experience when dealing with enemies that wear heavy armor.

[Hawk]

The mere fact that you invoked that asshat Hobbes virtually invalidates your position as far as I'm concerned. The "state of Nature" is such a laughable fiction--that you employ is for formulating "rules of thumb," and as anything beyond a fun little discursive hypothetical, is pretty rich.

Bellum omnium contra omnes, bitch.

I don't understand why I can't say **** or *** but I can say bitch.

[zitothebrave]

There are a couple of elements that I would hone in on if I were a member of the defense:

- The shooter was 71-years old (the victim 30 years his junior). The trauma of having a bucket of popcorn thrown at a man that age is exponentially greater. It could have damaged his eye, or caused him to go into cardiac arrest. As the theater was dark he probably did not realize immediately that it was popcorn that hit him. He could have thought it was any number of things.

- The shooter was a trained SWAT police officer -- clearly he understands the virtues of deadly force -- so an argument could easily be sustained that he did view himself as being in danger of grievous bodily harm, especially given the inherent flimsiness of Florida's self-defense laws.

- The article says that the victim's wife suffered a gunshot wound to the hand because she was trying to calm her husband down (by reaching her hand across his chest, presumably to hold him back.) Again, we don't see any violence from the shooter until he pulls the trigger, but we have two fairly straightforward instances of outward aggression on the part of the victim before that moment.

As for the beer thing, that's really my entire point. You pour a beer over somebody's head when you are in an argument, what do you expect to happen? You've opened yourself up to any number of things based on the insecurity of the person you assaulted. Nevertheless, you instigated -- and in the state of nature, especially Hobbes', just about anything could happen. Rule of thumb: don't be an unrepentant asshat, or you just might wind up getting shot and killed by a guy who will, in all likelihood, be acquitted (and considered a hero by some).

1. What the hell would hit your face like popcorn that would give you the idea that your life is in danger that you need to use a firearm? As far as trauma and damaged whatnots, that's irrelevant when it comes to use of a firearm.

2. He was trained years ago, doesn't mean he knows what to do now.

3. Trying to calm down and holding back are 2 different. Maybe she was holding her hand on his chest telling him to stop arguing and chill. Not restraining him. You're speculating. We don't see any violence before you're right, but he was verbal and people indicated he came back looking very irritated. And there's one instance of "outward aggression" and that's throwing something. We don't know what either of them was doing body language wise, so you're just speculating.

4. There are various levels of assault that justify self defense. It's up to a lawyer to prove it was excessive or necessary. Throwing popcorn, pouring beer, etc. is not something that justifies getting shot at. An attorney who's not incompetent will have this guy behind bars. He'll need a wonder defense attorney. This isn't Trayvon Martin, this is clear second degree murder.

4.

[Krgrecw]

There are a couple of elements that I would hone in on if I were a member of the defense:

- The shooter was 71-years old (the victim 30 years his junior). The trauma of having a bucket of popcorn thrown at a man that age is exponentially greater. It could have damaged his eye, or caused him to go into cardiac arrest. As the theater was dark he probably did not realize immediately that it was popcorn that hit him. He could have thought it was any number of things.

- The shooter was a trained SWAT police officer -- clearly he understands the virtues of deadly force -- so an argument could easily be sustained that he did view himself as being in danger of grievous bodily harm, especially given the inherent flimsiness of Florida's self-defense laws.

- The article says that the victim's wife suffered a gunshot wound to the hand because she was trying to calm her husband down (by reaching her hand across his chest, presumably to hold him back.) Again, we don't see any violence from the shooter until he pulls the trigger, but we have two fairly straightforward instances of outward aggression on the part of the victim before that moment.

As for the beer thing, that's really my entire point. You pour a beer over somebody's head when you are in an argument, what do you expect to happen? You've opened yourself up to any number of things based on the insecurity of the person you assaulted. Nevertheless, you instigated -- and in the state of nature, especially Hobbes', just about anything could happen. Rule of thumb: don't be an unrepentant asshat, or you just might wind up getting shot and killed by a guy who will, in all likelihood, be acquitted (and considered a hero by some).






Hawk don't forget that the old man left the theatre to look for help but didn't find any theatre employees so he returned than he was bullied by the husband and then the husband poured popcorn on him.


Old man went looking for help. It's Manslaughter at best.

[jpx7]

Bellum omnium contra omnes, bitch.

Needless to say, I reject this fundamentally apolitical view of human "nature," man's nature being inherently political: any apolitical conception of "man" necessarily describes a different animal entirely.


I don't understand why I can't say **** or *** but I can say bitch.

Fearless Leader is a misogynist.

[zitothebrave]

Hawk don't forget that the old man left the theatre to look for help but didn't find any theatre employees so he returned than he was bullied by the husband and then the husband poured popcorn on him.


Old man went looking for help. It's Manslaughter at best.

Woo speculation!!

Maybe he found the manager or whatever and they told them to piss off.

[Hawk]

I'm not for banning guns, but I am for gun reform, mainly my common opinion is that someone has to go through a police type of training to own one and the crimes for using/possessing an unregistered weapon should be stronger. If you're not mentally fit to own a weapon, you shouldn't.

I agree with you here, but it's painful, because I don't fully embrace the idea of a national mental health check/centralized government database in relation to guns. But at the same time I respect the necessity for both if any meaningful strides are to be made to stem the tide of gun violence in our country.

I like the Israeli gun control model a great deal, it's rigid, but it works -- especially in a country that actually needs guns for survival.

[jpx7]

I like the Israeli gun control model a great deal, it's rigid, but it works -- especially in a country that actually needs guns for survival.

Well, "need" is a strong word, considering the circumstances: Israeli citizens wouldn't need guns if their government weren't systematically and violently oppressing the autochthonous population.

[Dalyn]

If only we had a way to regulate cuntrods, the rest would sort itself out.

[Hawk]

1. What the hell would hit your face like popcorn that would give you the idea that your life is in danger that you need to use a firearm? As far as trauma and damaged whatnots, that's irrelevant when it comes to use of a firearm.

A bucket, un-popped kernels, hot butter. This guy was 71-year old and in the dark (with Dolby Digital blaring). It's not irrelevant at all when it comes to determining self-defense vs. murder.

2. He was trained years ago, doesn't mean he knows what to do now.

Nonetheless he has a lifetime background in policing (and not writing tickets, dealing with hostages and high drama situations). He was a Captain, too.

3. Trying to calm down and holding back are 2 different. Maybe she was holding her hand on his chest telling him to stop arguing and chill. Not restraining him. You're speculating. We don't see any violence before you're right, but he was verbal and people indicated he came back looking very irritated. And there's one instance of "outward aggression" and that's throwing something. We don't know what either of them was doing body language wise, so you're just speculating.

I'm basing all of my opinion here on one article so speculation is going to happen -- that being said, my speculation about the wife holding him back makes more sense than her telling him to 'chill' given the way her body would have to be positioned to put her arm across his chest.

4. There are various levels of assault that justify self defense. It's up to a lawyer to prove it was excessive or necessary. Throwing popcorn, pouring beer, etc. is not something that justifies getting shot at. An attorney who's not incompetent will have this guy behind bars. He'll need a wonder defense attorney. This isn't Trayvon Martin, this is clear second degree murder.

I think you forget that a jury will be deciding.

[Hawk]

Well, "need" is a strong word, considering the circumstances: Israeli citizens wouldn't need guns if their government weren't systematically and violently oppressing the autochthonous population.

Nevertheless, their ... justifiable penchant for guns exists (unlike ours).

[The Chosen One]

It usually takes about 10-15 shots to knock the armor off and then another 5-10 shots to bring the guy down. At least this is my experience when dealing with enemies that wear heavy armor.

Lol meant to put "wouldn't". That's why i brought up the Armor thing. Someone with a ccw with a few rounds probably wouldn't have taken down Holmes.

[zitothebrave]

1. Hot butter? what the hell movie theater do you go to? And unpopped kernels? For real? I don't think if Nolan ryan threw a bucket from the wind up that i'd feel any serious pain. Much less fear for my life. Not saying guy isn't a doucher, cause he acted like one, but that doesn't justify self defense with deadly force.

2. That's fine, and who knows what his training did in that situaiton. Maybe he suffers from some form of PTSD and that triggered him? Which if that's the case he shouldn't be armed.

3. Have you ever been in a movie theater? There's not much space, how else would she grab him? Shoudler, check hand, hip, that's about it. We don't know what she did. Because no one knows.

4. A jury will decide, but again, it's second, not a capital offense so only a simple majority is needed and part of being a competent attorney is getting at least half the jury to be in your favor.

[Hawk]

Needless to say, I reject this fundamentally apolitical view of human "nature," man's nature being inherently political: any apolitical conception of "man" necessarily describes a different animal entirely.

I have to admit I'm a little perplexed by your reading of Hobbes.

Who do you subscribe to closest, in terms of political philosophy?

[Hawk]

1. Hot butter? what the hell movie theater do you go to? And unpopped kernels? For real? I don't think if Nolan ryan threw a bucket from the wind up that i'd feel any serious pain. Much less fear for my life. Not saying guy isn't a doucher, cause he acted like one, but that doesn't justify self defense with deadly force.

Yeah, but you are in your 20s (?) ... not 70. Dude, a slick sidewalk is a threat to a 70 year old.

2. That's fine, and who knows what his training did in that situaiton. Maybe he suffers from some form of PTSD and that triggered him? Which if that's the case he shouldn't be armed.

And that is not speculative, how?

3. Have you ever been in a movie theater? There's not much space, how else would she grab him? Shoudler, check hand, hip, that's about it. We don't know what she did. Because no one knows.

The article said she 'grabbed' her husband. On his chest. Where he was shot. It could go either way, but the language implies she was trying to defuse him not the situation.

4. A jury will decide, but again, it's second, not a capital offense so only a simple majority is needed and part of being a competent attorney is getting at least half the jury to be in your favor.

Given the shooter's age, standing in the community, and previous public duty, a majority is going to hard as hell to achieve.

[zitothebrave]

1. You're comparing the risk of falling to something that weighs a couple of ounces being thrown. It's freaking popcorn.

2. I'm speculating, but you're speculating that his training would make him make that decision. We don't know that.

3. Calming one party diffuses a situation. When do you diffuse a situation between 2 people, 1 you know and 1 you don't. I'm assuming since you're a male you've probably been involved in a potential altercation with someone you know and someone you don't. To stop the fight, what do you do? you calm down the person you know because you can, calming down a stranger you aren't familiar and reassuring to them.

4. Have to disagree. That stuff will play better for sentencing than it does for conviction. Only prayer he has in that regard is florida's 10-20-Life law meaning he would go to jail a minimum of 25, that may mean his age may come into play. But he deserves to be in jail the rest of his life. So I'm cool with 25.

[cajunrevenge]

Good thing that ex-cop didnt shoot a black guy, then he would really be in some deep ****.

[Hawk]

1. You're comparing the risk of falling to something that weighs a couple of ounces being thrown. It's freaking popcorn.

2. I'm speculating, but you're speculating that his training would make him make that decision. We don't know that.

3. Calming one party diffuses a situation. When do you diffuse a situation between 2 people, 1 you know and 1 you don't. I'm assuming since you're a male you've probably been involved in a potential altercation with someone you know and someone you don't. To stop the fight, what do you do? you calm down the person you know because you can, calming down a stranger you aren't familiar and reassuring to them.

4. Have to disagree. That stuff will play better for sentencing than it does for conviction. Only prayer he has in that regard is florida's 10-20-Life law meaning he would go to jail a minimum of 25, that may mean his age may come into play. But he deserves to be in jail the rest of his life. So I'm cool with 25.

Let's agree to come back to this when the trial actually starts.

[gilesfan]

Yeah, him and about ten other people most likely.

Again, I have nothing against responsible gun ownership. I think a lot of people on the left break out in hives when guns are brought up and I don't really know why. I think it's actually the aesthetic more than anything else.

Just a little anecdote. Most everyone here knows I'm a lobbyist working primarily with public schools. Last session, in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, there was a raft of anti-gun bills (all but one of which died) floating around the legislature. I was leaving one of the committees I was covering right before the multitude of gun-control opponents/proponents flooded the room. I was gathering up my stuff when the police chief from a small suburb that I do some work with sat down. I asked him what he thought about the proposal to let principals/teachers carry weapons. He didn't know me from Adam, but he gave me one of the best-reasoned responses to the issue I have heard and it stuck with me. Think of life as being a scale of zero-to-sixty with zero being no calm and sixty being danger. Most people are at zero (or close to it) most of the time. Cops are at about 30 when they are on duty and 20 when they are off duty. To expect someone who is not trained (and I mean someone who is simply able to pass a test and carry a permit) to put themselves into a dangerous situation and succeed is an extremely dicey proposition. It would be like going from zero-to-sixty in no time flat. It is difficult enough for cops to go from thirty-to-sixty, but they are trained to detect and react to situations that may turn tense (and sometimes dangerous). To ask someone to go from saying "Hey, the Dark Knight is really cool" to assessing a situation in a dark theater as to where a shooter is and how to put one's self into a position to take down the shooter without recklessly endangering the lives of other movie-goers is a hard sell to me.

I don't think gun owners are necessarily arrogant. But I believe the notion that "if I--or someone else--had only had my--their--gun, things would have been different," as in the "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is for a good guy to have a gun" is really an arrogant proposition. It simply suspends reality and as a result is wishful thinking.


Unfortunately those without a gun had no chance.

[zitothebrave]

Let's agree to come back to this when the trial actually starts.

Fair point. There still will be issues at trial, but at least giving it time for more witnesses to come out and talk will do the story some good.

[Krgrecw]

Woo speculation!!

Maybe he found the manager or whatever and they told them to piss off.



Than the theatre is in deep ****.

[The Chosen One]

Good thing that ex-cop didnt shoot a black guy, then he would really be in some deep ****.

Not really. If Zimmerman the neighborhood crime watch guy gets off free, this ex-cop could possibly get his own show on Fox News!

[zitothebrave]

Than the theatre is in deep ****.

No they aren't. In what insane world are they in deep ****. Sure they'll be brought in on the civil side, but they have no fault unless they told him to go back there and take care of it himself. Which they most likely didn't.

[goldfly]

Well 50, if someone had a gun in Aurora, Colorado, it could had ended differently

statements like this

is why i am a cynic when it comes to this country

[The Chosen One]

statements like this

is why i am a cynic when it comes to this country

IF YOU DON'T LIKE 'MURICA THEN MOVE TO THE SOVIET UNION.

[Tapate50]

Seriously though (and I read this in one of the new stories), a fellow movie attendee asked "Why would anyone bring a gun to a movie?" My sentiments exactly. I don't give two hoots about guns. Own as many as you want. But seriously, who feels a need to carry at the local movie theater?

I do, but don't because I don't have something I can tuck in my pocket. My father carries in a movie theater though.

[sturg33]

Yeah, him and about ten other people most likely.

Again, I have nothing against responsible gun ownership. I think a lot of people on the left break out in hives when guns are brought up and I don't really know why. I think it's actually the aesthetic more than anything else.

Just a little anecdote. Most everyone here knows I'm a lobbyist working primarily with public schools. Last session, in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, there was a raft of anti-gun bills (all but one of which died) floating around the legislature. I was leaving one of the committees I was covering right before the multitude of gun-control opponents/proponents flooded the room. I was gathering up my stuff when the police chief from a small suburb that I do some work with sat down. I asked him what he thought about the proposal to let principals/teachers carry weapons. He didn't know me from Adam, but he gave me one of the best-reasoned responses to the issue I have heard and it stuck with me. Think of life as being a scale of zero-to-sixty with zero being calm and sixty being danger. Most people are at zero (or close to it) most of the time. Cops are at about 30 when they are on duty and 20 when they are off duty. To expect someone who is not trained (and I mean someone who is simply able to pass a test and carry a permit) to put themselves into a dangerous situation and succeed is an extremely dicey proposition. It would be like going from zero-to-sixty in no time flat. It is difficult enough for cops to go from thirty-to-sixty, but they are trained to detect and react to situations that may turn tense (and sometimes dangerous). To ask someone to go from saying "Hey, the Dark Knight is really cool" to assessing a situation in a dark theater as to where a shooter is and how to put one's self into a position to take down the shooter without recklessly endangering the lives of other movie-goers is a hard sell to me.

I don't think gun owners are necessarily arrogant. But I believe the notion that "if I--or someone else--had only had my--their--gun, things would have been different," as in the "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is for a good guy to have a gun" is really an arrogant proposition. It simply suspends reality and as a result is wishful thinking.

Yeah... it's always a better idea to hide under chairs and call 991 - you know, people with guns - to stop the madness.

[sturg33]

LOL at people suggesting going through training in order to own a gun. Do rights mean nothing anymore?

[sturg33]

I agree with you here, but it's painful, because I don't fully embrace the idea of a national mental health check/centralized government database in relation to guns. But at the same time I respect the necessity for both if any meaningful strides are to be made to stem the tide of gun violence in our country.

I like the Israeli gun control model a great deal, it's rigid, but it works -- especially in a country that actually needs guns for survival.

Which tide is that? The receding one?

[sturg33]

statements like this

is why i am a cynic when it comes to this country

Right again. Because it's much better and safer to hide under chairs while someone is shooting point blank. Call the cops! They will bring their batons to stop these people!

[The Chosen One]

Yeah... it's always a better idea to hide under chairs and call 991 - you know, people with guns - to stop the madness.

I'd imagine calling 991 won't get you anything but the error sound.

[Hawk]

Which tide is that? The receding one?

Are you trying to say that even a nominal level of gun violence is acceptable?

[The Chosen One]

The problem is we've distributed so many guns into circulation legally and illegally to the point where not only good guys have them but bad guys have had access to them as well.

And the only "solution" the right has is to bring more guns into the picture legally.

The entire point is to curb gun violence by lowering and discouraging the amount of guns in circulation, but everytime "liberals" try to make the argument, the right comes back with the 2nd Amendment crap and Obama is coming to take all your guns and put you in concentration camps cynicism. From there we can never make any actual progress on anything.

[Hawk]

I'd imagine calling 991 won't get you anything but the error sound.

You might get patched over to Zambian emergency response services.

[The Chosen One]

You might get patched over to Zambian emergency response services.

You know how the porn industry hijacked whitehouse.com and nasa.com... wouldn't be surprised if 991 was a direct hotline to Ron Jeremy.

[sturg33]

Are you trying to say that even a nominal level of gun violence is acceptable?

I'm trying to say that guns aren't the issue. Bad people are the issue. Most of the gun violence happens in major cities in (shockingly) gun-free zones. I saw an interesting stat the other day (though I haven't fact-checked it).

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Obama: 19
Romney: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000
Romney: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million
Romney: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Obama: 13.2
Romney: 2.1

[weso1]

The problem is we've distributed so many guns into circulation legally and illegally to the point where not only good guys have them but bad guys have had access to them as well.

And the only "solution" the right has is to bring more guns into the picture legally.

The entire point is to curb gun violence by lowering and discouraging the amount of guns in circulation, but everytime "liberals" try to make the argument, the right comes back with the 2nd Amendment crap and Obama is coming to take all your guns and put you in concentration camps cynicism. From there we can never make any actual progress on anything.

For their part the liberals blew it by going too far with their proposed legislation. Rather than concentrate on the real issue of gun violence, handguns in the hands of unscrupulous citizens and black on black crime, they tried to ban guns that are involved in a very very small percentage of homicides, homicides which very well would have occurred even if assault rifles were banned. The population was ready for more stringent gun regulation, but liberal politicians let emotions get the best of them.

[The Chosen One]

Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000
Romney: 2,427,000


We need to make an amendment to the constitution that says grass on farms, crops, mountains, and cattle should be able to vote.

[The Chosen One]

For their part the liberals blew it by going too far with their proposed legislation. Rather than concentrate on the real issue of gun violence, handguns in the hands of unscrupulous citizens and black on black crime, they tried to ban guns that are involved in a very very small percentage of homicides, homicides which very well would have occurred even if assault rifles were banned. The population was ready for more stringent gun regulation, but liberal politicians let emotions get the best of them.

Yes and No.

Something as simple as the background checks debacle was just NRA cronies building it up as Obama building up a database so he could invade your home and relocate you to a concentration camp. HIDE YO KIDS HIDE YO WIFE. As if he couldn't already just use the NSA to find out where you live.

[weso1]

Had Obama strictly concentrated on more stringent background checks, it would have passed. The bigger issue here though is black on black crime. Maybe a good jobs bill is a better solution than gun control?

[The Chosen One]

Had Obama strictly concentrated on more stringent background checks, it would have passed. The bigger issue here though is black on black crime. Maybe a good jobs bill is a better solution than gun control?

Wasn't it Feinstein that was going for renewal on assault ban?

I remember Obama going for background checks as early as January after the new year began just a few weeks after Newtown.

And you know the jobs bill won't pass unless democrats get a stipulation of more handouts while Republicans won't budge unless they get tons of wasted pork for their districts, so we're back to square zero because we never got to square one.

[The Chosen One]

Also wes, just face it the GOP are not going to help pass any sensible jobs bill this year or next because 2016 is right around the corner and if jobs numbers are good at the end of Obama's term then it will give a boost for Hillary's run in 2016 and we know the GOP will not allow that. They can sit back and not do a thing for the next 2 years and when job numbers remain stagnant they can just go to their constituents and just say "see Obama didn't do anything he sucked blah blah blah, vote me for re-election and also vote for Rubio/Christie/Paul so we can finally fix the country".

So that pipedream is pretty much passed.

[sturg33]

Also wes, just face it the GOP are not going to help pass any sensible jobs bill this year or next because 2016 is right around the corner and if jobs numbers are good at the end of Obama's term then it will give a boost for Hillary's run in 2016 and we know the GOP will not allow that. They can sit back and not do a thing for the next 2 years and when job numbers remain stagnant they can just go to their constituents and just say "see Obama didn't do anything he sucked blah blah blah, vote me for re-election and also vote for Rubio/Christie/Paul so we can finally fix the country".

So that pipedream is pretty much passed.

Sounds very similar to 08

[The Chosen One]

Sounds very similar to 08

Except Pelosi's Congress from 2007-2008 will likely have passed more things with Bush than Boehner's Congress from 2011-2015.

[gilesfan]

The problem is we've distributed so many guns into circulation legally and illegally to the point where not only good guys have them but bad guys have had access to them as well.

And the only "solution" the right has is to bring more guns into the picture legally.

The entire point is to curb gun violence by lowering and discouraging the amount of guns in circulation, but everytime "liberals" try to make the argument, the right comes back with the 2nd Amendment crap and Obama is coming to take all your guns and put you in concentration camps cynicism. From there we can never make any actual progress on anything.


The focus should be taking guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. Not limiting the supply of guns, which simply drives up prices and makes guns purchased on the street more prevalent.

[jpx7]

I have to admit I'm a little perplexed by your reading of Hobbes.

What specifically perplexes you?

I will admit I was being purposefully glib with my initial comments re Hobbes; I do not think Leviathan (which is all I’ve read of Hobbes) is without valuable insights. However, I simply think the state of Nature heuristic is needlessly simplistic and speculative—being anterior to discourse, among other things—and is moreover an especially dubious metric for evaluating human action, in no small part because it’s intrinsically regressive (something I think even its believers and adherents would admit is the case). Even mostly agreeing with Rousseau—that self-interest alone cannot account for the cooperative condition that makes a human "human," and that it cannot be disentangled from the "natural repugnance to seeing any sentient Being, and especially any being like ourselves, perish or suffer"—I nonetheless question the validity of arguing that these principles exist or existed as "principles prior to reason" (though at least Rousseau, to his credit, acknowledges how difficult an endeavor it is to perform "experiments […] to know natural man").

Furthermore—and you may notice that my reading of Hobbes is heavily inflected with Rousseau—"force does not make right," and thus the civil state—which, following Aristotle, I hold to be commensurate with the human’s natural state—applies itself to "substituting justice for instinct". It is in this spirit that I reject bellicosity for all against all as an accurate description of the human condition, concurring again with Rousseau: "the state of war, far from being natural to man, is born of peace, or at least the precautions men have taken to secure lasting peace."


Who do you subscribe to closest, in terms of political philosophy?

As for my personal predilections: a single subscription would be difficult for me to claim. If, in terms of practical political philosophy, my mindset were imagined a piece of meat, I guess you could call it an Aristotelian cut with significant Machiavellian republican marbling—non-trivially seasoned with notions like Tocqueville’s skepticism of democracy (at least qua its American formulation), Foucault’s discomfort with the modes of surveillance and incarceration deployed by contemporary institutions as the mechanical foundations of their authority, and Rousseau's somewhat quixotic notion that the spirit of the Social Contract is to force people to be free—all roasted over a nice, heaping Platonic pyre.

And I would’ve cited Plato—and the Republic, Protagoras, and Phaedo specifically—but it’s my reading that he doesn’t so much as supply an answer (as Aristotle attempts in Politics), as asserts a global strategy for thinking: the imperative of both questioning and being mindful of context. Or, as Eliot (care of Dante) might say: sovegna vos—which probably comes as close to a personal credo as I could get.

[jpx7]

The bigger issue here though is poverty and the paucity of viable, useful, well-funded and well-run social supports.

Fixed it for you.

[50PoundHead]

I'm trying to say that guns aren't the issue. Bad people are the issue. Most of the gun violence happens in major cities in (shockingly) gun-free zones. I saw an interesting stat the other day (though I haven't fact-checked it).

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Obama: 19
Romney: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000
Romney: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million
Romney: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Obama: 13.2
Romney: 2.1

I know Joe Olson (not well) and he's pretty much a nut.

But sturg, the main problem with Olson's analysis (and it's nothing new--Bill Bishop did the same thing in "The Big Sort") is that it undercuts the system as set up by the Founding Fathers (and subsequently changed in some instances through amendments to the US Constitution). There's nothing diabolical going on here.

[50PoundHead]

Yeah... it's always a better idea to hide under chairs and call 991 - you know, people with guns - to stop the madness.

It's not solely about guns here. It's about having training to deal with a situation that is fairly complex. People firing guns randomly in a chaotic situation just doesn't bode well for anyone.

[The Chosen One]

The focus should be taking guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. Not limiting the supply of guns, which simply drives up prices and makes guns purchased on the street more prevalent.

Can't wait for Obama to say that, and then have the NRA's translator convey that to the American public as Obama wants to take everyone's guns and enslave humanity, Nazi-Germany style.

[The Chosen One]

It's not solely about guns here. It's about having training to deal with a situation that is fairly complex. People firing guns randomly in a chaotic situation just doesn't bode well for anyone.

But you missed the point entirely 50.

If everyone in the theater were armed and had a gun, then Holmes wouldn't have been able to kill them. Because having a gun means you're not going to die. And everyone else around you having a gun means nobody is going to die except the bad guy.

See how simple that was?

All you have to do is what Peter did in the video. Just have a gun and tell the bad guy to stop it and he will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8reIa71Bpw

[sturg33]

If someone is pointing a gun at you and intends to fire it, would you rather have a gun or not?

[yeezus]

I'm trying to say that guns aren't the issue. Bad people are the issue. Most of the gun violence happens in major cities in (shockingly) gun-free zones. I saw an interesting stat the other day (though I haven't fact-checked it).

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Obama: 19
Romney: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000
Romney: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million
Romney: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Obama: 13.2
Romney: 2.1

This basically points out that cities (densely populated) voted democrat, while country states (not as densely populated) voted republican. Obama won popular and electoral, so what's your point?

[yeezus]

If someone is pointing a gun at you and intends to fire it, would you rather have a gun or not?

C. No one pointing a gun at me

[sturg33]

This basically points out that cities (densely populated) voted democrat, while country states (not as densely populated) voted republican. Obama won popular and electoral, so what's your point?

Haha you can't figure it out?

[sturg33]

C. No one pointing a gun at me

Garsh, I can't figure out why the folks in the Colorado movie theater didn't choose C!

[yeezus]

Haha you can't figure it out?

That big cities vote democrat?

[The Chosen One]

If someone is pointing a gun at you and intends to fire it, would you rather have a gun or not?

Perhaps by the time I go for the gun, they get nervous and pull the trigger accidentally and I'm dead anyhow.

Unless you want me to do some quick draw wild wild west type of stuff.

[50PoundHead]

If someone is pointing a gun at you and intends to fire it, would you rather have a gun or not?

If I am sitting in a theater watching a movie and someone comes barging in with an automatic weapon showering the place with bullets, I don't think that me or everyone else in the theater having a gun is going to make much, if any, difference.

[yeezus]

Perhaps by the time I go for the gun, they get nervous and pull the trigger accidentally and I'm dead anyhow.

Unless you want me to do some quick draw wild wild west type of stuff.

Or teach everyone to use guns and eventually give them one when they're old enough. This way, whenever an argument or fight breaks out, a gun will be more readily available.

The whole notion that "if everyone had a gun, people would think before pulling theirs out and shooting someone!" is so silly. It would make guns more prevalent in common, little disagreements. More people having guns is an inherently bad thing. Guns in general are in inherently bad. And yes, it's because people are people. But people are never going to stop being people.

[yeezus]

If I am sitting in a theater watching a movie and someone comes barging in with an automatic weapon showering the place with bullets, I don't think that me or everyone else in the theater having a gun is going to make much, if any, difference.

PRECISELY.
This guy was not worried about consequences when he did this. Dying was a real possibility for him, I'm sure he knew it deep down, but it doesn't appear he was concerned with much other than shooting a bunch of people.

[Tapate50]

Perhaps by the time I go for the gun, they get nervous and pull the trigger accidentally and I'm dead anyhow.

Unless you want me to do some quick draw wild wild west type of stuff.

Perhaps you were smart enough to leave the safety on until needed.

[Tapate50]

If I am sitting in a theater watching a movie and someone comes barging in with an automatic weapon showering the place with bullets, I don't think that me or everyone else in the theater having a gun is going to make much, if any, difference.

Whaaaa?

[50PoundHead]

Whaaaa?

Again, simply possessing a firearm (1) won't deter a nut, and (2) doesn't account for the training necessary to react correctly in this situation. There's a little bit more than simply channeling your inner Raylan Givens here.

[yeezus]

Whaaaa?

Wait, that sounds outrageous to you?
If a person is randomly shooting up a theater and "good guy" who has a gun pulls his and starts shooting, who's to say he doesn't shoot innocent people himself? Who's to say he doesn't get shot before pulling his gun?
This is reality, not a movie where the good guy has perfect aim and WINS.

[Hawk]

Wait, that sounds outrageous to you?
If a person is randomly shooting up a theater and "good guy" who has a gun pulls his and starts shooting, who's to say he doesn't shoot innocent people himself? Who's to say he doesn't get shot before pulling his gun?
This is reality, not a movie where the good guy has perfect aim and WINS.

99.9% of the time an individual that's carrying concealed in a movie theater has a permit and is likely well-trained in the use of his firearm.

I think many people would prefer to have that guy in the theater with them if an incident similar to the one in Aurora were to occur.

You don't, and that's cool, but you are purposefully slapping around very sound logic from the other side.

[yeezus]

99.9% of the time an individual that's carrying concealed in a movie theater has a permit and is likely well-trained in the use of his firearm.

I think many people would prefer to have that guy in the theater with them if an incident similar to the one in Aurora were to occur.

You don't, and that's cool, but you are purposefully slapping around very sound logic from the other side.

One can be "well-trained" and not be able to shoot through crowds of frantic people. It's very possible this man makes no difference, or shoots some innocent people along the way. That logic is sound.

[weso1]

If I am sitting in a theater watching a movie and someone comes barging in with an automatic weapon showering the place with bullets, I don't think that me or everyone else in the theater having a gun is going to make much, if any, difference.

Sure it could easily make a difference. It's ok to admit that sturg is right on this one. If you had a theater full of guns then the dude probably wouldn't have even tried it in the first place. Now that doesn't mean that a society where most people carry is a good thing, but it would certainly help prevent some of these mass shootings. Of course mass shootings are very rare and only make up a very small amount of US homicides. The best answer is to just try to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them. Don't ban guns, but use better regulation.

[Hawk]

One can be "well-trained" and not be able to shoot through crowds of frantic people. It's very possible this man makes no difference, or shoots some innocent people along the way. That logic is sound.

I'm not saying that it isn't ... I see your point.

What I'm saying is that I would rather take my chances being protected by the guy with a gun than to just sit there and pray for the best.

[sturg33]

Sure it could easily make a difference. It's ok to admit that sturg is right on this one. If you had a theater full of guns then the dude probably wouldn't have even tried it in the first place. Now that doesn't mean that a society where most people carry is a good thing, but it would certainly help prevent some of these mass shootings. Of course mass shootings are very rare and only make up a very small amount of US homicides. The best answer is to just try to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them. Don't ban guns, but use better regulation.

Interesting that I've never heard of a mass shooting at a gun show

[jpx7]

99.9% of the time an individual that's carrying concealed in a movie theater has a permit and is likely well-trained in the use of his firearm.

From where are you sourcing this statistic?


You don't, and that's cool, but you are purposefully slapping around very sound logic from the other side.

I mean this seriously, and not in patronizing fashion: What's this "very sound logic" being slapped about?

[sturg33]

So just to be clear - 50, Sav, and Yeezus, would prefer to NOT have a gun if someone is holding a gun at them.

[sturg33]

That big cities vote democrat?

Or that the big "gun free" cities have a higher murder rate by 6X?

[Hawk]

Where are you sourcing this statistic?

The HSG (Hyperbolic Statistics Group). Well respected, quasi-legit.

[sturg33]

Wait, that sounds outrageous to you?
If a person is randomly shooting up a theater and "good guy" who has a gun pulls his and starts shooting, who's to say he doesn't shoot innocent people himself? Who's to say he doesn't get shot before pulling his gun?
This is reality, not a movie where the good guy has perfect aim and WINS.

So you assume he can kill more people... people who probably got killed anyway from the killer who had no resistance.

I suggest he can kill the killer. And that's outrageous.

Got it.

[jpx7]

So just to be clear - 50, Sav, and Yeezus, would prefer to NOT have a gun if someone is holding a gun at them.

We're not even through January, and you've already won Mr Reductio ad Ridiculum, 2014. Congratulations: what an honor.

[yeezus]

So just to be clear - 50, Sav, and Yeezus, would prefer to NOT have a gun if someone is holding a gun at them.

This is why arguing with you is like arguing with an infant.

[yeezus]

Or that the big "gun free" cities have a higher murder rate by 6X?

There are a lot of reasons that this is the case, and being a "gun free" zone may be on the lower end of reasons.

[sturg33]

I asked a very simple question and neither you answered one way or the other. This makes me think you would rather not have that weapon. If I'm wrong, just let me know and I'll edit.

[Hawk]

I mean this seriously, and not in patronizing fashion: What's this "very sound logic" being slapped about?

That an individual in possession of a gun is a better defender (against a mad man with automatic weaponry and tactical body armor) than an individual who is simply bare-knuckling it.

[sturg33]

We're not even through January, and you've already won Mr Reductio ad Ridiculum, 2014. Congratulations: what an honor.

Was the question not relevant? Why didn't any of them provide an answer?

How would you answer? If someone is holding a gun at you and intends to fire, would you prefer to have a gun on you or not?

[yeezus]

I asked a very simple question and neither you answered one way or the other. This makes me think you would rather not have that weapon. If I'm wrong, just let me know and I'll edit.

You took a more complex situation and stripped it down to a single, simplistic situation that doesn't really apply. That's why no one answered your silly question.

[jpx7]

That an individual in possession of a gun is a better defender (against a mad man with automatic weaponry and tactical body armor) than an individual who is simply bare-knuckling it.

Well, with such a narrow, circumstance-blind context, it may appear "very sound logic"; but the bare-knuckler, in view of actual circumstance, is—while less likely to disable or eliminate the maniac threat—also a lot less likely to cause additional, if accidental, harm and death. This is likewise sound logic—even if you think it isn't a necessary and foregone conclusion that collateral damage to innocents would have occurred.

[jpx7]

Was the question not relevant?

Yes: it is an irrelevant question. It masquerades as simple, ho-hum "got ya there" wisdom in an attempt to distract from and obscure the broader complexities that you (I hope) know exist in this discussion. It's textbook reductio ad ridiculum, and I will repeat: your question was not relevant.

[sturg33]

You took a more complex situation and stripped it down to a single, simplistic situation that doesn't really apply. That's why no one answered your silly question.

It's not a single, simplistic, situation that doesn't apply. It happened to my own dad in Baltimore right in front of my brother. My dad simply showed that he had a gun and the mugger retreated into the dark.

You can ignore the question all you want. You ignore it because the answer is obvious but it would dispute your liberal la-la land ideology. So you ignore it and insult me. Good for you. But if in that situation, you prefer to be unarmed, then you're a ****ing idiot.

[jpx7]

It's not a single, simplistic, situation that doesn't apply. It happened to my own dad in Baltimore right in front of my brother. My dad simply showed that he had a gun and the mugger retreated into the dark.

You can ignore the question all you want. You ignore it because the answer is obvious but it would dispute your liberal la-la land ideology. So you ignore it and insult me. Good for you. But if in that situation, you prefer to be unarmed, then you're a ****ing idiot.

Your single anecdote does not equate to the overwhelming empirical boom, mother-****ers that you think it does. It's just as possible the sight of a weapon could have caused the mugger to, ahem, jump the gun on brandishing his own.

But it's not fallacious because "It could never happen—eeehhhhrrrmrrrrghrrrdd wait it did!"; it's fallacious because it ignores—willfully, I'm going to be kind enough to assume—the broader issue of gun-violence in the US to score a mean and petty little point regarding the impulse to self-preservation in a very specific, narrowly-defined moment of danger that by no means ramifies across, or redresses in a meaningful way, the substance of the actual conversation.

[sturg33]

LOL... I always love it when people refuse to answer a very simple question.

Wake me up when the mass-shooting at a gun show occurs. There's tons of dumb southerners with unlimited access to guns... Any day now.

[jpx7]

If someone is pointing a gun at you and intends to fire it, would you rather have a gun or not?


LOL... I always love it when people refuse to answer a very simple question.

Well, to be fair—as you can see above—you asked a nice, reductive, hyperbolic statement and then pretended to be downright shocked—shocked, I say—when it wasn't taken seriously.

But I'll answer the question in the same spirit you "asked" it: I'd prefer not to have have someone pointing a gun at me with the intention to fire (or otherwise, for that matter).

[Hawk]

Well, with such a narrow, circumstance-blind context, it may appear "very sound logic"; but the bare-knuckler, in view of actual circumstance, is—while less likely to disable or eliminate the maniac threat—also a lot less likely to cause additional, if accidental, harm and death. This is likewise sound logic—even if you think it isn't a necessary and foregone conclusion that collateral damage to innocents would have occurred.

So at absolute best, the bare-knuckler equals out with the maniac, because there's the existence of this fear of the armed defender potentially shooting an innocent?

I take still take the armed defender, collateral and all, because there's the chance (which is not as infinitesimal as you and others have tried to construe it) that he takes out the shooter and protects many, if not all of the victims. Again, considering all the circumstances which would legally allow a concealed weapon into a movie theater (excepting an outlaw felon, which is outside of my control) we're looking at the armed defender having a much higher degree of skill with his firearm.

[sturg33]

Well, to be fair—as you can see above—you never asked a question, simple or otherwise. You made a nice, reductive, hyperbolic statement and then pretended to be downright shocked—shocked, I say—when it wasn't taken seriously.

But, I'll rephrase your assertion in the form of an actual, punctuated question: Would you prefer to not have a gun if someone is holding a gun at you?

Then I'll answer the question in the same spirit you "asked" it: I'd prefer to not have have someone holding a gun at me.

Page 5


If someone is pointing a gun at you and intends to fire it, would you rather have a gun or not?

[jpx7]

So at absolute best, the bare-knuckler equals out with the maniac, because there's the existence of this fear of the armed defender potentially shooting an innocent?

I take still take the armed defender, collateral and all, because there's the chance (which is not as infinitesimal as you and others have tried to construe it) that he takes out the shooter and protects many, if not all of the victims. Again, considering all the circumstances which would legally allow a concealed weapon into a movie theater (excepting an outlaw felon, which is outside of my control) we're looking at the armed defender having a much higher degree of skill with his firearm.

Well, (a) I personally never said nor construed the likelihood that the gun-hero "takes out the shooter" was infinitesimal in this highly speculative thought-experiment; instead I simply (b) don't think the chance, whatever its percentage-likelihood, is enough to not only discourage any consideration, discussion, or implementation of further gun-control measures but to moreover justify encouraging greater gun ownership as a response to fears of maniac murder-sprees and vigilante wannabees.

Not to get all sturg-style anecdotal, but I've known way too many foolhardy, rash-acting totally legal gun-owners in my limited lifetime to allow me to think that Maybe the Aurora dude might have been stopped sooner (with no accidental injuries/fatalities from stopping him)! is satisfactory justification for More people need to be packing! If anything, gun laws are too constrictive! But, hey—I was born and raised in Florida, so maybe that's coloring my data-set.

[jpx7]

Page 5

You're right: I missed that first volley, which was in fact technically phrased as a question. I've emended my post accordingly.

I did, coincidentally, respond to the question in question.

[weso1]

Guys... the answer is yes... I would like to have a gun if someone is about to shoot my ass. It shouldn't be that hard to answer sturg's question. You would be a moron not to want a gun. Just answer his question and move on.

It doesn't mean that a society where most people carry guns is better than what we have now. Because certainly it increases the risk of random arguments turning into shootouts.

[Krgrecw]

Weso, while more guns in hands will increase random arguments turning into much more, more guns will also keep crime down.

[50PoundHead]

Sure it could easily make a difference. It's ok to admit that sturg is right on this one. If you had a theater full of guns then the dude probably wouldn't have even tried it in the first place. Now that doesn't mean that a society where most people carry is a good thing, but it would certainly help prevent some of these mass shootings. Of course mass shootings are very rare and only make up a very small amount of US homicides. The best answer is to just try to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them. Don't ban guns, but use better regulation.

And it could just as easily not make a difference. I've overstated my point in saying "If everyone had a gun," but if there's an element of surprise, how many people are going to have to be carrying--and trained--for the fact that there are guns "against" the perpetrator is going to matter?

Hawk, I'm not buying the fact that people who carry are necessarily "trained." They know how to handle a firearm. They have to pass a test to show they are aware of the laws pertaining to firearms. But is that training to defuse a dangerous situation? The training to carry is really a low bar and I don't think it's relevant here.

[zitothebrave]

Or that the big "gun free" cities have a higher murder rate by 6X?

That's an obtuse way of looking at that

[yeezus]

If sturg had the ability or desire to read through the lines, he'd see that his question has essentially been answered. What I'm trying to explain, along with jpx, is that simple example he poses is completely devoid of context, while the issue we're discussing isn't, so what's the point in the question? It's useless, and while he feels he proves a point by him asking and us answering, he truly does not. Instead of addressing jpx's POINTS (not useless questions), he all he says is "answer the question!"

A mass shooting at a gun show and a mass shooting in a movie theater are not the same things. I don't know, AGAIN, exactly how that comparison or suggestion is useful. It taking one circumstance and comparing it to a completely different circumstance. It seems like simple-mindedness.

[yeezus]

That's an obtuse way of looking at that

His entire premise is purposefully obtuse.

[sturg33]

That's an obtuse way of looking at that

Why do you think gun violence is highest in cities that have banned guns?

[The Chosen One]

Weso, while more guns in hands will increase random arguments turning into much more, more guns will also keep crime down.

Debatable.

No evidence to support that. I can only imagine more guns on the street would lead to more shootouts, not people minding their own business.

More shootouts means more murders and attempted murder, so I don't think that would deter crime.

You underestimate the rage of the human brain and the self-defense adrenaline mechanisms it possesses.

[sturg33]

If sturg had the ability or desire to read through the lines, he'd see that his question has essentially been answered. What I'm trying to explain, along with jpx, is that simple example he poses is completely devoid of context, while the issue we're discussing isn't, so what's the point in the question? It's useless, and while he feels he proves a point by him asking and us answering, he truly does not. Instead of addressing jpx's POINTS (not useless questions), he all he says is "answer the question!"

A mass shooting at a gun show and a mass shooting in a movie theater are not the same things. I don't know, AGAIN, exactly how that comparison or suggestion is useful. It taking one circumstance and comparing it to a completely different circumstance. It seems like simple-mindedness.

But see, you didn't answer the question. And you still won't. And it's such an easy question to answer.

The reason it was asked is because we're having the argument that if you were in a classroom (tech) or a theater (colorado), and a nutcase came in guns a blazing, you guys are saying you wouldn't want someone in class with a gun.

I'm asking you the same type of question. And the answer is so obvious. Yet you won't answer. Because it completely contradicts your stance on the classroom or theater scenario.

Perhaps us crazy gun lovers feel that the threat of being shot is enough to deter a nutcase from killing. Perhaps not. But if it were guns that were the issue, then why haven't we seen a single case of gun violence at a gun show? That is a place where literally everyone is walking around with guns and access to more guns. You'd think, by now, we'd have seen one violent act. But we haven't. Why? Because as soon as a hypothetical shot is fired, that person is dead.

[The Chosen One]

Why do you think gun violence is highest in cities that have banned guns?

Like Chicago, the thugs are importing them from outside. Let's make it a severe penalty to anyone associated with importing those banned weapons to deter them from even thinking about trying it.

Let's not ask normal people to arm themselves with guns everywhere they go, because that is a recipe for disaster in a public place like a subway or shopping market or even sports venue.

[The Chosen One]

But see, you didn't answer the question. And you still won't. And it's such an easy question to answer.

The reason it was asked is because we're having the argument that if you were in a classroom (tech) or a theater (colorado), and a nutcase came in guns a blazing, you guys are saying you wouldn't want someone in class with a gun.

I'm asking you the same type of question. And the answer is so obvious. Yet you won't answer. Because it completely contradicts your stance on the classroom or theater scenario.

Perhaps us crazy gun lovers feel that the threat of being shot is enough to deter a nutcase from killing. Perhaps not. But if it were guns that were the issue, then why haven't we seen a single case of gun violence at a gun show? That is a place where literally everyone is walking around with guns and access to more guns. You'd think, by now, we'd have seen one violent act. But we haven't. Why? Because as soon as a hypothetical shot is fired, that person is dead.

Perhaps the reason someone doesn't go guns a blazing in a gun show is because everyone is carrying. You shoot one person, then all the gun enthusiasts will shoot back. It's completely different than a psychopath going into a school where he KNOWS there are innocents who aren't carrying (and why would they) and going out shooting.

The fact you are making the argument that public places should be like a semi gun show with everyone carrying is ludicrous.

[sturg33]

Like Chicago, the thugs are importing them from outside. Let's make it a severe penalty to anyone associated with importing those banned weapons to deter them from even thinking about trying it.

Let's not ask normal people to arm themselves with guns everywhere they go, because that is a recipe for disaster in a public place like a subway or shopping market or even sports venue.

I look at it from a different angle. The thugs get the guns illegally (this will NEVER change). And they happen to know that there is absolutely no resistance to them when they want to cause trouble. Bring a gun to a knife fight and you will likely win.

[sturg33]

Perhaps the reason someone doesn't go guns a blazing in a gun show is because everyone is carrying. You shoot one person, then all the gun enthusiasts will shoot back. It's completely different than a psychopath going into a school where he KNOWS there are innocents who aren't carrying (and why would they) and going out shooting.

The fact you are making the argument that public places should be like a semi gun show with everyone carrying is ludicrous.

You're making my point for me, and I appreciate that.

But I thought if everyone had guns, arguments would start and people would get shot??

[The Chosen One]

I love the simple-mindedness of some of your views.

Let's have a total free market with no checks from the government, and watch everyone in the country prosper.

Let's have no regulations, because we should trust businesses to make the right moves for their own capital.

Let's have no gun regulations, so everyone can carry and we'll be a safer place with less crime (hahahah).

Let's leave *** marriage up to the states, because they'll make the right decision (lol @ anyone living in the Southeast).

[The Chosen One]

You're making my point for me, and I appreciate that.

But I thought if everyone had guns, arguments would start and people would get shot??

The people who go to gun shows respect guns for what they are. We're all Braves fans, so we come to a Braves forum to discuss the Atlanta Braves. We're not going to knock each other on the head and attack each other (unless you're Gilesfan).

The people who go to gun shows are either enthusiasts/hobby guys or curious interested minded people. Your average person doesn't know a quarter of what someone that goes toa gunshow probably knows and the society I want to live in I'm OK with that because that's what I'd want in a perfect society.

A person going up into a gunshow and shooting up is the same thing as a Mets fan coming into our board and ambushing us. It's stupid and pointless.

[The Chosen One]

I look at it from a different angle. The thugs get the guns illegally (this will NEVER change). And they happen to know that there is absolutely no resistance to them when they want to cause trouble. Bring a gun to a knife fight and you will likely win.

So let's aim at minimizing thugs and ridding of them, not increasing gun circulation in hopes it will deter thugs who are ruthless and wreckless anyways.

I'd imagine if 3 thugs came out you with a gun each, and you showed them yours, that 1 to 3 doesn't look too pretty. You're just as useless as not having a gun in that instance unless you're a Clerk from Equilibrium and can dodge all those bullets.

Thugs are wreckless, they'll shoot at you even if they feel the slightest intimidation from you.

[Krgrecw]

Sav, do you admit that the bad guys obtain guns illegally and whether there were strict gun laws or not, they'd still have them?

[sturg33]

Sav, do you admit that the bad guys obtain guns illegally and whether there were strict gun laws or not, they'd still have them?

STOP BEING SO SIMPLISTIC!!!!!

[The Chosen One]

Sav, do you admit that the bad guys obtain guns illegally and whether there were strict gun laws or not, they'd still have them?

So let's aim our resources at minimizing the thug threat, instead of encouraging people to buy guns. If people want to buy guns on their own accord then I'm fine with that, but to strike up and hype up a threat to make people go out and get one is purely what the NRA and their manufacturers want. Just look at how Beck and Limbaugh helped skyrocket gun sales in Obama's Presidency. All they had to do was say he wants to take all your guns and confiscate them (even before Newtown) for people to think "Ole Blacky is going to try and put down the white man, need to stick to our guns!" and went out and bought more guns. We've had record gun sales under Obama, without any gun regulation laws passed.

It's only natural that the biggest cities would also have the most gun violence since you have more people interacting with more people which will increase the probability of an altercation occurring.

That's almost as dumb of a point as Romney won more square mileage in the election than Obama.

[Dalyn]

Going to see this movie tomorrow. When you guys decide whether it is safer to take my .357 or not, please let me know.

[Hawk]

Going to see this movie tomorrow. When you guys decide whether it is safer to take my .357 or not, please let me know.

Snub nose?

[Krgrecw]

So let's aim our resources at minimizing the thug threat, instead of encouraging people to buy guns. If people want to buy guns on their own accord then I'm fine with that, but to strike up and hype up a threat to make people go out and get one is purely what the NRA and their manufacturers want. Just look at how Beck and Limbaugh helped skyrocket gun sales in Obama's Presidency. All they had to do was say he wants to take all your guns and confiscate them (even before Newtown) for people to think "Ole Blacky is going to try and put down the white man, need to stick to our guns!" and went out and bought more guns. We've had record gun sales under Obama, without any gun regulation laws passed.

It's only natural that the biggest cities would also have the most gun violence since you have more people interacting with more people which will increase the probability of an altercation occurring.

That's almost as dumb of a point as Romney won more square mileage in the election than Obama.



I think there's a different reason why some big cities have higher crime rates than others. Nothing to do with the amount of people.
The only way you can diminish the thug threat is to hold the thugs accountable but people don't want to do that.

[The Chosen One]

Personally I think it's rude when people don't bring guns with suppressors on them. If your'e going to shoot someone, at least use a suppressor so you don't disturb other people trying to watch the movie.

Never ceases to amaze me how selfish some people are.

[zitothebrave]

Why do you think gun violence is highest in cities that have banned guns?

Most of those cities that banned guns have a much bigger poverty problem than a gun one. poverty + gangs = gun deaths.

[Dalyn]

Snub nose?

Yeah.

About the size of this one - http://cdn.firearmstalk.com/forums/attachments/f16/6466d1254348193-revolver-pictures-dscf5090.jpg

[zitothebrave]

I think there's a different reason why some big cities have higher crime rates than others. Nothing to do with the amount of people.
The only way you can diminish the thug threat is to hold the thugs accountable but people don't want to do that.

WHat are you even talking about? I feel like you read **** on some uber conservative "news" site and assume it's the word of god. I'd be willing to bet there's more "thugs" who went to jail. Take the drugs from them, that's the best method.

[50PoundHead]

Going to see this movie tomorrow. When you guys decide whether it is safer to take my .357 or not, please let me know.

If you are seeing Frozen, an emphatic "No!"

If you are seeing August: Osage County, a "Maybe" because you might want to shoot Meryl Streep's character.

If you are seeing Lone Survivor, "Probably" because you don't want to end up the Lone Survivor.

If you are seeing Last Vegas, "Yes" because you may want to shoot yourself about halfway through.

[Oklahomahawk]

Yeah.

About the size of this one - http://cdn.firearmstalk.com/forums/attachments/f16/6466d1254348193-revolver-pictures-dscf5090.jpg

Noone likes a "bragger"!!! ;)

[Oklahomahawk]

Personally I think it's rude when people don't bring guns with suppressors on them. If your'e going to shoot someone, at least use a suppressor so you don't disturb other people trying to watch the movie.

Never ceases to amaze me how selfish some people are.

True Dat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dalyn]

I would have to post that one in the other forum.

[Oklahomahawk]

I would have to post that one in the other forum.

:bowdown:

[yeezus]

But see, you didn't answer the question. And you still won't. And it's such an easy question to answer.

The reason it was asked is because we're having the argument that if you were in a classroom (tech) or a theater (colorado), and a nutcase came in guns a blazing, you guys are saying you wouldn't want someone in class with a gun.

I'm asking you the same type of question. And the answer is so obvious. Yet you won't answer. Because it completely contradicts your stance on the classroom or theater scenario.

Perhaps us crazy gun lovers feel that the threat of being shot is enough to deter a nutcase from killing. Perhaps not. But if it were guns that were the issue, then why haven't we seen a single case of gun violence at a gun show? That is a place where literally everyone is walking around with guns and access to more guns. You'd think, by now, we'd have seen one violent act. But we haven't. Why? Because as soon as a hypothetical shot is fired, that person is dead.

You really are a moron.
That question and answer would not contradict anything. It is a completely different situation than what's being discussed. At the movie theater, or pretty much any mass shooting ever, there scenario isn't simply "one guy with a gun, the other ONE PERSON (mass shooting = ????) with or without a gun???" You're putting the situation at hand in a vacuum. I don't know how many different ways I can this. I get the silly point you're trying to make, but it is NOT APPLICABLE to the movie theater shooting, or any other mass shooting. Therefore, it is not relevant. Yet, you won't move on - this is all you've got, and I guess you truly feel you've made a point. I think you've made a statement, that's for sure - but certainly not the one you intended to make. It's a statement you've made regularly on here. And this statement is my first sentence.

[goldfly]

Personally I think it's rude when people don't bring guns with suppressors on them. If your'e going to shoot someone, at least use a suppressor so you don't disturb other people trying to watch the movie.

Never ceases to amaze me how selfish some people are.

the daily show had a lobby group on once that was actually lobby gov'ts to allow suppressors easier to the general public for this exact reason

seriously

[sturg33]

You really are a moron.
That question and answer would not contradict anything. It is a completely different situation than what's being discussed. At the movie theater, or pretty much any mass shooting ever, there scenario isn't simply "one guy with a gun, the other ONE PERSON (mass shooting = ????) with or without a gun???" You're putting the situation at hand in a vacuum. I don't know how many different ways I can this. I get the silly point you're trying to make, but it is NOT APPLICABLE to the movie theater shooting, or any other mass shooting. Therefore, it is not relevant. Yet, you won't move on - this is all you've got, and I guess you truly feel you've made a point. I think you've made a statement, that's for sure - but certainly not the one you intended to make. It's a statement you've made regularly on here. And this statement is my first sentence.

So you wouldn't want a gun in the simple question outlined above... OK

Go smoke some pot and calm down

[Tapate50]

I don't think many people on this thread know **** about using a weapon. Therefore, not speaking from a whole lot of experience .... Just my opinion from reading the comments...

[50PoundHead]

I don't think many people on this thread know **** about using a weapon. Therefore, not speaking from a whole lot of experience .... Just my opinion from reading the comments...

I don't know about using a weapon. But that's not really the issue. The issue is more about situation management than marksmanship.

[sturg33]

I don't think many people on this thread know **** about using a weapon. Therefore, not speaking from a whole lot of experience .... Just my opinion from reading the comments...

I have an open carry license… and am pretty good with the shot. Nothing special or anything, but unlike yeezus, I'd want my weapon if someone is ready to shoot me.

[Tapate50]

I don't know about using a weapon. But that's not really the issue. The issue is more about situation management than marksmanship.

I wasn't just referring to marksmanship at all. It just seems like guns are the end all be all when the bad guys have one but when the good guys have one they are just ineffective and a innocents killer. You cannot have it both ways. Just not much informed opinion here is all.

[zitothebrave]

I wasn't just referring to marksmanship at all. It just seems like guns are the end all be all when the bad guys have one but when the good guys have one they are just ineffective and a innocents killer. You cannot have it both ways. Just not much informed opinion here is all.

The situation brought up where people discussed innocents being killed was one where there was someone who was heavily armed, heavily armored and threw tear gas into the crowd in a dark movie. Someone having a gun in that situation, saying he could have put that guy down is someone who's not in touch with reality.

I'm sure there are times where someone carrying can save lives, I'm sure there are times it costs lives. Could continue on but it's pointless since everyone has their mind made up.

[50PoundHead]

I wasn't just referring to marksmanship at all. It just seems like guns are the end all be all when the bad guys have one but when the good guys have one they are just ineffective and a innocents killer. You cannot have it both ways. Just not much informed opinion here is all.

I guess what I'm saying is a bad guy with the element of surprise has a tremendous advantage that would be difficult to overcome. It's clearly different if I would be carrying (and I don't plan on it) and see a guy walking fifty yards away brandishing a handgun. In the latter instance, I can react and a gun would be effective. But if a guy with a gun gets a drop on someone, it's probably not going to matter whether or not he is carrying. Try to draw, you're probably dead. But again it will depend on the environment in which the perpetrator attacks.

Why are there no shootings at a gun show? Because that's where you can get guns without a background check and your stray oddball doesn't want that source to dry up. Halfway kidding.

[sturg33]

I guess what I'm saying is a bad guy with the element of surprise has a tremendous advantage that would be difficult to overcome. It's clearly different if I would be carrying (and I don't plan on it) and see a guy walking fifty yards away brandishing a handgun. In the latter instance, I can react and a gun would be effective. But if a guy with a gun gets a drop on someone, it's probably not going to matter whether or not he is carrying. Try to draw, you're probably dead. But again it will depend on the environment in which the perpetrator attacks.

Why are there no shootings at a gun show? Because that's where you can get guns without a background check and your stray oddball doesn't want that source to dry up. Halfway kidding.

You're argument is that having a gun may be of little use to you.

My argument is not having a gun will definitely be no use to you.

But any day now, there will be a shooting at a gun show. It's gotta happen with all those dumb aggressive southerners having guns

[50PoundHead]

You're argument is that having a gun may be of little use to you.

My argument is not having a gun will definitely be no use to you.

But any day now, there will be a shooting at a gun show. It's gotta happen with all those dumb aggressive southerners having guns

And I just see that as a distinction without a difference in the situation we're discussing.

[gilesfan]

I guess what I'm saying is a bad guy with the element of surprise has a tremendous advantage that would be difficult to overcome. It's clearly different if I would be carrying (and I don't plan on it) and see a guy walking fifty yards away brandishing a handgun. In the latter instance, I can react and a gun would be effective. But if a guy with a gun gets a drop on someone, it's probably not going to matter whether or not he is carrying. Try to draw, you're probably dead. But again it will depend on the environment in which the perpetrator attacks.

Why are there no shootings at a gun show? Because that's where you can get guns without a background check and your stray oddball doesn't want that source to dry up. Halfway kidding.

Bc you can't take loaded guns into a gun show. You are checked. Besides, these cowards are looking for easy targets and someone shoots up a gun show, they won't last long at all.

Why is it an assumption that the licensed gun permit holder will cause more deaths than the sicko randomly shooting up a theater?

[gilesfan]

If I am sitting in a theater watching a movie and someone comes barging in with an automatic weapon showering the place with bullets, I don't think that me or everyone else in the theater having a gun is going to make much, if any, difference.


In a crowd of 100 people in a theater, if 15 of them had a gun, you believe he would be able to take out all 15 before 1 could get shots off back at him?

[50PoundHead]

gilesfan, a set of licensed-to-carry folks in the theater could, conceivably take a guy out. I agree that the chances are obviously better that when no one in the audience is carrying. That's simple math. One is greater zero.

And it's not about whether he could take all 15 people in your example, it's if any of them could take him down in a dark theater that will likely have people in a panic around them. Sure if a guy who is carrying is sitting 5 feet from the shooter and the shooter is shooting "over" him, it's likely easy pickings for the defense. But what if the "carriers" are all in the back of the theater? Odds become infinitesimally low that they will make any difference unless they are either an off-duty cop or retired military.

[gilesfan]

For someone to hit a 3 foot by 3 foot target from 20 yards away is really not that difficult. You don't need to be a cop of in the military to do so. I go to the range once a year and that is simple.

Now, I understand the added stress/panic/etc could make it difficult. However, there are many instances of civilian gun holders making accurate shots under pressure.

Furthermore, if I'm in that situation (i've only be in one on one situation when someone pulled gun on me and shoved in my chest) I would rather myself and others have guns. I would put faith in the permit holding gun holder would have a better shot of shooting the bad guy than shooting pedestrians (that wouldn't have been shot by the perp)

[zitothebrave]

Lol gilesfan has been to the range so he knows he can take people donw haha.

Cops shoot all the time, they have a minimum standard for shooting, but you hear of them missing should be easy shots in firefights for a number of reasons, but the main one is ranges don't shoot back.

[goldfly]

you want to know why i laugh and know america isn't the greatest country in the world?


In a crowd of 100 people in a theater, if 15 of them had a gun, you believe he would be able to take out all 15 before 1 could get shots off back at him?

this type of thinking is still held and spread by many people in this country

as if any of these stupid scenarios should be part of the conversation

180 posts of "if more people had guns, this wouldn't be a problem"

Australia and Japan etc don't seem to be having problems of shoot outs in theaters

[50PoundHead]

I guess I'll have to use an extreme (and trite) example. Just because someone walks up to home plate with a bat doesn't mean they can hit a baseball. As I understand it (and I'm never going to get one, so I'll never really know), the requirements to get a carry permit are very low and I don't know if they have to be renewed and what the renewal requirements are.

I must live a very unexciting life, because I've never been in any situation where a gun has been drawn on me or anyone else. I was in a theater once where we had to be cleared out because two guys got in a fist fight, but other than that it's pretty frickin' boring up here in Minnesota.

My whole point in this is that in these situations, having a bunch of folks with carry permits doesn't mean a whole lot unless they have training in how to react and shoot in a situation like that in the Aurora theater incident. Going back to my cop example I first cited, the police chief I spoke with told me that cops have to be re-certified monthly on the range for accuracy and also go through active refreshers on procedures when firearms are used in situations like the one we are talking about.

I want to repeat, I have no inherent aversion at my core being about gun ownership. People can buy as many as they want. People want to carry them; fine with me. I hesitate to call it arrogance, but there just seems to be this notion among some in the gun-carrying community that "as long as I've got my gun, I can take care of any situation" and I find that attitude prevalent in this discussion.

We can continue the circular argument. I've already admitted that a couple of people with guns would obviously have a greater probability of stopping a situation like Aurora than the total absence of guns in the audience, but that is simple math and nothing more. I just don't think the probability is that much higher.

[Hawk]

Australia and Japan etc don't seem to be having problems of shoot outs in theaters

Remember the Akihabara massacre? Lunatics kill, even without guns. Even in Japan.

Not really making a point, except that I think it's very difficult to expel a compulsion to murder.

[zitothebrave]

Remember the Akihabara massacre? Lunatics kill, even without guns. Even in Japan.

Not really making a point, except that I think it's very difficult to expel a compulsion to murder.

It's impossible to expel. But it's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun or other projectile weapon than any close quarters kind of battle whether it's knife or fists or choking. Murder will happen but it's easy when you have a killing machine.

[goldfly]

Remember the Akihabara massacre? Lunatics kill, even without guns. Even in Japan.

Not really making a point, except that I think it's very difficult to expel a compulsion to murder.

you really want to compare crime and "mass killing" stats with Japan?

is Akihabara the exception or the rule in Japan?

are you more shocked to find out something like Akihabara happens in Japan or a school shooting or this theater shooting happens here?

you get where i am going with this my friend?

[Hawk]

you get where i am going with this my friend?

Not exactly, tbh.

Like I said, I wasn't trying to make a point about guns, moreso the looming issue after the guns are 'handled' -- however they are handled.

[Hawk]

Murder will happen but it's easy when you have a killing machine.

The guy that perpetrated Akihabara used a truck and a dagger and killed 7 people and injured 12.

Remember the guy that drove into the Santa Monica Farmers Market? 10 killed, 63 injured -- in 10 seconds. Somebody tried to do the same thing in Venice Beach this summer.

All I'm saying is that people will find other ways, even without guns. That's not to say we shouldn't do anything about guns. But let's consider the broader issue.

[Julio3000]

The guy that perpetrated Akihabara used a truck and a dagger and killed 7 people and injured 12.

Remember the guy that drove into the Santa Monica Farmers Market? 10 killed, 63 injured -- in 10 seconds. Somebody tried to do the same thing in Venice Beach this summer.

All I'm saying is that people will find other ways, even without guns. That's not to say we shouldn't do anything about guns. But let's consider the broader issue.

I don't disagree with that, but to me, the broader issue includes the consideration that if we've got more people carrying, we've likely got more of this (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=0).

[57Brave]

One today - with no one commenting on this or any of these:
Do we just now live with it or are we ready to address the problem??

Headline on HP-
FRIDAY: Student Gunned Down At South Carolina University... WEDNESDAY: False Shooting Scare At University Of Oklahoma... TUESDAY: One Dead In Purdue University Shooting... MONDAY: Student Critically Wounded In Widener University Shooting... LAST THURSDAY: Supermarket Shooting Leaves 3 Dead In Indiana...

[AerchAngel]

There is nothing anyone can do about guns. If people want to shoot people, they will obtain a weapon regardless if it is outlawed.

[57Brave]

Do you think that is what we said after the Germans bombed Peal Harbor?

[goldfly]

There is nothing anyone can do about guns. If people want to shoot people, they will obtain a weapon regardless if it is outlawed.

let's get rid of all laws then obviously

[Hawk]

Or just start making practical ones.

[Hawk]

I don't disagree with that, but to me, the broader issue includes the consideration that if we've got more people carrying, we've likely got more of this (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=0).
KeithLockhart really needs to change the color of links.

[AerchAngel]

let's get rid of all laws then obviously

Current ones aren't working but I know what will work, but let's not go there.

Hint: Police state..... cops come to your house and empty you of your weapons. Hunters will be pissed of course but the deers would love it.


Unless you have another idea to keep weapons from people wanting to kill people, everyone wants to hear your suggestion. But let me remind you that criminals or those who want to kill can get weapons ANYTIME they want regardless if you are like NYC where you can't have any.

[Krgrecw]

Current ones aren't working but I know what will work, but let's not go there.

Hint: Police state..... cops come to your house and empty you of your weapons. Hunters will be pissed of course but the deers would love it.


Unless you have another idea to keep weapons from people wanting to kill people, everyone wants to hear your suggestion. But let me remind you that criminals or those who want to kill can get weapons ANYTIME they want regardless if you are like NYC where you can't have any.




That's the thing. The gun problem can't be fixed. It is what it is.

[zitothebrave]

That's the thing. The gun problem can't be fixed. It is what it is.

That's a hella good attitude.

Keys to fixing gun problems that will never happen because lobbyists on both sides

1. Universal health care including mental health. You may be asking yourself what the 2 have to do with each other and it's well known that most mass shootings are done by someone with a mental disorder or some sorts, often times not being treated. Better overall mental health in this country is important.

2. Require more strict testing for and for retaining your gun. Police are typically required to recertify in firearm training very year or month. Some states have no standard for even certifying the first time they're capable of owning a gun. I also think as part of this usage of the testing is a course held by the police explaining the laws of the state, and how they are trained to use firearms.

3. Strict penalties for anyone found using a firearm or possessing a firearm that's illegal.

Those are the 3 basic things that could cut down on mass shootings. The first being the most important. The second would possibly stop shootings that aren't of the mass variety but done by people who may not quite fully grasp the gravity of the situation they're in or will be in when pulling a gun.

There are a handful of sad truths everyone has to come to realize in the pro-gun side. First is that pulling a gun can turn a situation that may have been a robbery or an assault adn turn it into a life and death situation, which you don't know how you or the person you're with would react. Maybe they stand down, or maybe they shoot first, or maybe you kill them, who knows, regardless your life will change drastically in many ways. Second is that the idea behind the second amendment of arming citizens to defend against tyranny is bunk. You owning an AK-47 won't stop the US government's tanks, stealth bombers, nuclear arsenal, etc. Sure you may be able to kill a few soldiers, but short of a mass uprising (read most of the population) not a thing good would come of it. In 2014 more so than maybe any point in the history of America, the pen is indeed mightier than the sword. Revolution has to happen via protest and legislation, because no militia stands a remote chance against the US war machine. The last is there needs to be a federal law regarding gun ownership. Some may not think this is important, some may think it's horrible (sturg) but you have some states where you can get a gun easily, and sure it's illegal to use that gun in some way or another in another state, but as has been stated a million times, someone who wants to commit a crime won't be deterred by laws. A single standard law that covers every state and every city with a standard to own and operate a fire arm is much better than leaving it in the current system. For example Alabama has some of the more lax laws on gun ownership (no permit needed for purchase, no registration, no ownership license required) what would stop someone from getting guns from Alabama and then moving them to tougher states to use as weapons? Of course even with strict laws people can get around them, but it's not as easy.

Last point on the subject is more of a soap box than contributing to the discussion, for the life of me I don't get why some republicans think they should own as many guns as possible and not need to have it registered or whatever, but think voter ID laws is cool. In what perverse universe does it make sense that owning a tool that's sole purpose is to kill should be easier to get than annual voting?

[gtcway]

That's the thing. The gun problem can't be fixed. It is what it is.


That's the problem, it can't be fixed so they say they've got to do whatever they can. The easy thing is to take guns from law abiding citizens. Why aren't they putting their collective brain power towards figuring out a plan to get guns from criminals, or the people who supply criminals?

Yes, the kids shooting up schools and malls aren't career criminals, and probably got their guns from their parents, but these people aren't waking up one day and saying "I'm going to shoot up my school". They plan it out for weeks. If their parents didn't have guns, they can find guns elsewhere.

[Tapate50]

That's the problem, it can't be fixed so they say they've got to do whatever they can. The easy thing is to take guns from law abiding citizens. Why aren't they putting their collective brain power towards figuring out a plan to get guns from criminals, or the people who supply criminals?

.

That's a novel idea. It is a shame criminals and legal gun owners are always lumped together when discussing gun issues and resolutions.

A lot of people have guns as a family heirloom passed down from great grandfather to sons.... What ya gonna do about those? They might we worth a ton of money and those folks aren't just gonna let you "come n get" a gun that's worth a few thousand dollars, and means much more to them.

[57Brave]

That's the problem, it can't be fixed so they say they've got to do whatever they can. The easy thing is to take guns from law abiding citizens. Why aren't they putting their collective brain power towards figuring out a plan to get guns from criminals, or the people who supply criminals?

Yes, the kids shooting up schools and malls aren't career criminals, and probably got their guns from their parents, but these people aren't waking up one day and saying "I'm going to shoot up my school". They plan it out for weeks. If their parents didn't have guns, they can find guns elsewhere.

Because the weapon industry has more money than pro-regulation organizations and thus more politicians in their pockets.
That will change in time. OR, when one of their family members is killed in one of these random acts .
and be sure it is juist a matter of time before a high profile person gets caught up in this.
Oh, wait, a while back a Congresswoman was shot. She survived but her Chief of Staff didn't.
Now, she is trying to fight the Weapons Industry -- I hear nary a peep out of any poster here supporting any of what she does. Matter of memory -- there was more defense of Sarah Palin than there is support for Gabby Giffords in the small sample that is this message board.

Perhaps that is the problem???
/////////////////////////

suppose we take weapons out of the equation of violent random acts?
and, violent random acts will not go away - isn't it written cain slew able?
Not, cain shot able

[Tapate50]

Because the weapon industry has more money than pro-regulation organizations and thus more politicians in their pockets.
That will change in time. OR, when one of their family members is killed in one of these random acts .
and be sure it is juist a matter of time before a high profile person gets caught up in this.
Oh, wait, a while back a Congresswoman was shot. She survived but her Chief of Staff didn't.
Now, she is trying to fight the Weapons Industry -- I hear nary a peep out of any poster here supporting any of what she does. Matter of memory -- there was more defense of Sarah Palin than there is support for Gabby Giffords in the small sample that is this message board.

Perhaps that is the problem???
/////////////////////////

suppose we take weapons out of the equation of violent random acts?
and, violent random acts will not go away - isn't it written cain slew able?
Not, cain shot able
Or perhaps the population tells their reps that they want to keep their guns? Maybe that's the general consensus?

And if so, isn't the govt doing what we want? After all, no gun regulation so far is working. I'll wait until I see a reg that might actually work before I support just making new regs for regs sake.

Like I said before, not separating out the legal responsible gun owners and nuts is well...lazy and won't get my support. I prefer the option of defending myself over waiting on the police if it came down to protecting my family. I am also a hunter. I enjoy it, and hope to teach my child the same.

My bolding of your first line didn't stick , but that was mainly what I was referring to.

You also have an unhealthy obsession with Palin.

[50PoundHead]

That's a hella good attitude.

Keys to fixing gun problems that will never happen because lobbyists on both sides

1. Universal health care including mental health. You may be asking yourself what the 2 have to do with each other and it's well known that most mass shootings are done by someone with a mental disorder or some sorts, often times not being treated. Better overall mental health in this country is important.

2. Require more strict testing for and for retaining your gun. Police are typically required to recertify in firearm training very year or month. Some states have no standard for even certifying the first time they're capable of owning a gun. I also think as part of this usage of the testing is a course held by the police explaining the laws of the state, and how they are trained to use firearms.

3. Strict penalties for anyone found using a firearm or possessing a firearm that's illegal.

Those are the 3 basic things that could cut down on mass shootings. The first being the most important. The second would possibly stop shootings that aren't of the mass variety but done by people who may not quite fully grasp the gravity of the situation they're in or will be in when pulling a gun.

There are a handful of sad truths everyone has to come to realize in the pro-gun side. First is that pulling a gun can turn a situation that may have been a robbery or an assault adn turn it into a life and death situation, which you don't know how you or the person you're with would react. Maybe they stand down, or maybe they shoot first, or maybe you kill them, who knows, regardless your life will change drastically in many ways. Second is that the idea behind the second amendment of arming citizens to defend against tyranny is bunk. You owning an AK-47 won't stop the US government's tanks, stealth bombers, nuclear arsenal, etc. Sure you may be able to kill a few soldiers, but short of a mass uprising (read most of the population) not a thing good would come of it. In 2014 more so than maybe any point in the history of America, the pen is indeed mightier than the sword. Revolution has to happen via protest and legislation, because no militia stands a remote chance against the US war machine. The last is there needs to be a federal law regarding gun ownership. Some may not think this is important, some may think it's horrible (sturg) but you have some states where you can get a gun easily, and sure it's illegal to use that gun in some way or another in another state, but as has been stated a million times, someone who wants to commit a crime won't be deterred by laws. A single standard law that covers every state and every city with a standard to own and operate a fire arm is much better than leaving it in the current system. For example Alabama has some of the more lax laws on gun ownership (no permit needed for purchase, no registration, no ownership license required) what would stop someone from getting guns from Alabama and then moving them to tougher states to use as weapons? Of course even with strict laws people can get around them, but it's not as easy.

Last point on the subject is more of a soap box than contributing to the discussion, for the life of me I don't get why some republicans think they should own as many guns as possible and not need to have it registered or whatever, but think voter ID laws is cool. In what perverse universe does it make sense that owning a tool that's sole purpose is to kill should be easier to get than annual voting?

Good set of recommendations zito. I think that peace officers have to re-certify monthly and the Minnesota Highway Patrol guys I know told me they have to do "active" scenarios at least once a year (where they have to react to a simulated emergency).

I don't agree with the NRA on much, but where I do agree with them is their suggestion that if you commit a crime with a gun, your sentence is automatically increased (at least that used to be one of their suggestions).

But there is no excuse not to have more thorough background checks. There simply isn't.

[Krgrecw]

Zito this where your wrong..

If convicted felons can illegally obtain guns why would mentally challenged people also be able to illegally obtain them?

Take the last few shootings

Did the kid at newtown have his own gun he legally got?

Guy that shoot up the movie theater did he go to a gun store and buy a gun?

Guy who shoot the congresswoman in Arizona? Did he legally obtain a gun?

Your ideas wouldn't had prevented one of these tragedies.

Kids at columbine buy guns legally?


Like AA says people can get guns left and right through illegal means. Laws won't prevent tragedies. laws only prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves.




I find it humorous that the only time the liberals bring up gun control is in the face of tragedies yet black people are committing murders against themselves in inner cities and gun control is never mentioned. And those are the majority of murders in America.

[50PoundHead]

Zito this where your wrong..

If convicted felons can illegally obtain guns why would mentally challenged people also be able to illegally obtain them?

Take the last few shootings

Did the kid at newtown have his own gun he legally got?

Guy that shoot up the movie theater did he go to a gun store and buy a gun?

Guy who shoot the congresswoman in Arizona? Did he legally obtain a gun?

Your ideas wouldn't had prevented one of these tragedies.

Kids at columbine buy guns legally?


Like AA says people can get guns left and right through illegal means. Laws won't prevent tragedies. laws only prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves.




I find it humorous that the only time the liberals bring up gun control is in the face of tragedies yet black people are committing murders against themselves in inner cities and gun control is never mentioned. And those are the majority of murders in America.

Needs to be greater control of buying guns/ammo over the internet.

As for the Newtown shooting, I don't know if the mother had the guns locked up or even if she did, the kid still got the keys, but if you've got a schizophrenic kid in the house, you need to take extra measures to make sure he/she can't get at the guns. I don't know if that can ever be a law, because it's largely unenforceable and I'm not for littering the statutes with feel-good language that doesn't accomplish anything. But the shooter's mother bears a pretty big responsibility in my book for not being responsible about her son's mental illness, which is the major part of the problem in that particular instance.

[57Brave]

There is more red tape and regulation involved in bringing a dog home from the pound than there is owning a weapon.
That speaks ---- no---- yells volumes

and two:
Begin holding those that profit from the weapon to bear some responsibility for the destruction

There are more restrictions on buying cold medicines than buying weapons.

And please lets call them what they are. Calling them "firearms" is fudging the subject. They are implements used for the purpose of killing anything that gets in their path.
Weapons

[The Chosen One]

@KeithLockhart (http://www.chopcountry.com/forums/member.php?u=1) really needs to change the color of links.

In due time... in a few months when I can afford a web designer lol.

At the moment I'm busy with tennis, golf, work, learning french and tagalog, and app development.

[cajunrevenge]

Not really. If Zimmerman the neighborhood crime watch guy gets off free, this ex-cop could possibly get his own show on Fox News!

If you equate throwing a bag of popcorn at someone to bring on top of someone punching them repeatedly then I can see how you come to such a warped conclusion.

This guy should get a shirt that says " I am not racist, I only shoot white people".

[zitothebrave]

Zito this where your wrong..

If convicted felons can illegally obtain guns why would mentally challenged people also be able to illegally obtain them?

Take the last few shootings

Did the kid at newtown have his own gun he legally got?

Guy that shoot up the movie theater did he go to a gun store and buy a gun?

Guy who shoot the congresswoman in Arizona? Did he legally obtain a gun?

Your ideas wouldn't had prevented one of these tragedies.

Kids at columbine buy guns legally?


Like AA says people can get guns left and right through illegal means. Laws won't prevent tragedies. laws only prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves.




I find it humorous that the only time the liberals bring up gun control is in the face of tragedies yet black people are committing murders against themselves in inner cities and gun control is never mentioned. And those are the majority of murders in America.

1. Mental health was clearly addressed in my post. Having better mental care could prevent them from even considering shooting someone up.

For the Newton shooting aside from the mental health aspect part of it, a better trained mother may have taken better care of her gun.

You're right in the basic truth that if someone wants to kill someone we can't stop them. But not trying is not an option either. There's lots of things that are inevitable if someone really wants to do them. If someone really wants to make a nuclear bomb they can, does that mean we shouldn't try to stop them or just let everyone own a nuke?

[The Chosen One]

If you equate throwing a bag of popcorn at someone to bring on top of someone punching them repeatedly then I can see how you come to such a warped conclusion.

This guy should get a shirt that says " I am not racist, I only shoot white people".

Let's not go back to the Zimmerman thing.

Mr. Neighborhood Crime Watch should've never pursued even after being told not to.

The whole "they always get away with this" or whatever he said to the operator is enough for me to know he should have never pursued Trayvon.

End.

[gilesfan]

Now, black people do mass shootings? ****, we are in trouble.

[The Chosen One]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/04/3242661/florida-man-shot-black-teen-loud-music-dispute-faces-murder-charge-week/

So sad.

[zitothebrave]

Interesting testimony

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

"According to Turner, Reeves said, "Throw popcorn in my face." "

According to a witness, that's what happened before the popcorn throw. If that's true dude should be slammed into jail and left there. I understand **** happens.

[Hawk]

Here's some video of it ... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b92_1391830564

[The Chosen One]

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=688474827840194&id=503699929651019&set=a.649460915074919.1073741826.503699929651019


Ugh. So depressing

[Krgrecw]

Interesting testimony

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

"According to Turner, Reeves said, "Throw popcorn in my face." "

According to a witness, that's what happened before the popcorn throw. If that's true dude should be slammed into jail and left there. I understand **** happens.


A witness that was sitting in a dark theatre saw that?

[zitothebrave]

You can see words? Cray

[The Chosen One]

Lots of theaters don't completely dim the lights until the actual movie begins.

Some theaters dim it halfway at the start of the previews.

Also, previews have enough brightness most of the time to where those guys would be shined on them.

[Krgrecw]

Yeah. I don't know how this case will play out. The old man obviously lost it for a second. He seemed like he was a decent guy that led a good life. The victim was being an ass.

Is the jury only 5 in this case?

Guess it will be a manslaughter verdict. But if it's a jury of 12, it'll be hung every time. You're not going to get all 12 people to convict their 'grandpa'
Could be 'self defense' if the young guy threatened him before throwing the popcorn at him. That's what I'd go with if there was a threat.


The theatre is going to be ****ed. Both parties can sue the **** out of it.

[Tapate50]

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=688474827840194&id=503699929651019&set=a.649460915074919.1073741826.503699929651019


Ugh. So depressing

You will have that with Facebook.

I got off of it for that exact reason. I don't miss it at all.

[Tapate50]

Needs to be greater control of buying guns/ammo over the internet.

As for the Newtown shooting, I don't know if the mother had the guns locked up or even if she did, the kid still got the keys, but if you've got a schizophrenic kid in the house, you need to take extra measures to make sure he/she can't get at the guns. I don't know if that can ever be a law, because it's largely unenforceable and I'm not for littering the statutes with feel-good language that doesn't accomplish anything. But the shooter's mother bears a pretty big responsibility in my book for not being responsible about her son's mental illness, which is the major part of the problem in that particular instance.

There isn't much difference in buying a gun over the internet and in person. You still have to go to a FFL and get all your paperwork finished up.

[Tapate50]

There is more red tape and regulation involved in bringing a dog home from the pound than there is owning a weapon.
That speaks ---- no---- yells volumes

and two:
Begin holding those that profit from the weapon to bear some responsibility for the destruction

There are more restrictions on buying cold medicines than buying weapons.

And please lets call them what they are. Calling them "firearms" is fudging the subject. They are implements used for the purpose of killing anything that gets in their path.
Weapons

Lol. I mean if you say illegally, then yeah. Most private sales even have a bill of sale and drivers license provided.

[50PoundHead]

There isn't much difference in buying a gun over the internet and in person. You still have to go to a FFL and get all your paperwork finished up.

Thanks for the clarification. I have never bought a gun anywhere, so I was unaware of that.

But doesn't it say something that the Aurora shooter bought almost all, if not all, of his stuff on the internet? Just curious.

[Tapate50]

Thanks for the clarification. I have never bought a gun anywhere, so I was unaware of that.

But doesn't it say something that the Aurora shooter bought almost all, if not all, of his stuff on the internet? Just curious.
It says the internet is a very powerful vehicle for commerce, but that's a common sense opinion.
It's just the same as walking in a gun store. The product just gets delivered to a gun store or a FFL (a gun dealer) to be held and you have to check out with them just the same way as buying the product off the shelf. The ATF checks their clearances one or two times per year . Basically you can order an pay, and then not be able to pick it up if your background checks don't clear. You just have access to different prices and inventory off the web.

Accessories can be purchased off the web with ease. Scopes, clips (subject to state regs), slings, etc...

[Tapate50]

I'd still like to see someone offer something directed at illegal gun owners (aka criminals) and exclude legal gun owners. Not doing so will never get the backing from pro gun, and not doing so is just lazy posturing when these tragedies occur from the antis. Thus no progress will be made.

[The Chosen One]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/24/stand-your-ground-records_n_5007847.html

[sturg33]

Link (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/125342-armed-man-gathers-people-together-dollar-general-breakroom-concealed-carry-holder-saves/)

When Kevin Mclaughlin entered the Dollar General in Orrville, Alabama, he probably didn’t expect it would be the last thing he would ever do. Brandishing a pistol, the man began herding people into the breakroom. But concealed permit holder Marlo Ellis waited until the right moment to gun down the potential murderer, which led many to call him a ‘Good Samaritan’ and a true hero.

The man is not set to be charged with any crime for defending himself and others against the masked gunman.

[Oklahomahawk]

Link (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/125342-armed-man-gathers-people-together-dollar-general-breakroom-concealed-carry-holder-saves/)

When Kevin Mclaughlin entered the Dollar General in Orrville, Alabama, he probably didn’t expect it would be the last thing he would ever do. Brandishing a pistol, the man began herding people into the breakroom. But concealed permit holder Marlo Ellis waited until the right moment to gun down the potential murderer, which led many to call him a ‘Good Samaritan’ and a true hero.

The man is not set to be charged with any crime for defending himself and others against the masked gunman.

I'd call it natural selection. What kind of moron robs a Dollar Store?? Was the Goodwill store already closed?

[zitothebrave]

Link (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/125342-armed-man-gathers-people-together-dollar-general-breakroom-concealed-carry-holder-saves/)

When Kevin Mclaughlin entered the Dollar General in Orrville, Alabama, he probably didn’t expect it would be the last thing he would ever do. Brandishing a pistol, the man began herding people into the breakroom. But concealed permit holder Marlo Ellis waited until the right moment to gun down the potential murderer, which led many to call him a ‘Good Samaritan’ and a true hero.

The man is not set to be charged with any crime for defending himself and others against the masked gunman.

Cause most robberies wind up in murders.

[Tapate50]

Cause most robberies wind up in murders.

Lol, that is a great time to "play the numbers" Zeets.

[zitothebrave]

Lol, that is a great time to "play the numbers" Zeets.

You must have never worked for a big company ever. They "play the numbers" all of the time.

If any other result had come from him pulling the gun, then I think you'd consider discussing the numbers. Cause that's what you do ni those situations.

[Krgrecw]

Most robberies don't end up in murders.

[Tapate50]

Most robberies don't end up in murders.

"Most" isn't "none" .

[Tapate50]

You must have never worked for a big company ever. They "play the numbers" all of the time.

If any other result had come from him pulling the gun, then I think you'd consider discussing the numbers. Cause that's what you do ni those situations.

Most bizarre comment ever. What does employment experience with a big company (that you routinely rail against) have to do with being threatened with a gun?

Not a thing.

[zitothebrave]

"Most" isn't "none" .

Again, if any other result happened, you would wish they played the odds.

[Tapate50]

Again, if any other result happened, you would wish they played the odds.

Nope. This just pigeonholes y'all's fantasy scenarios where it's not possible someone saves the day, simple as that. According to most of this thread, it isn't doable to thwart crime with a gun. Low and behold this guy may have saved a ton of lives.

[zitothebrave]

Nope. This just pigeonholes y'all's fantasy scenarios where it's not possible someone saves the day, simple as that. According to most of this thread, it isn't doable to thwart crime with a gun. Low and behold this guy may have saved a ton of lives.

And if he missed or the guy saw his gun, he may have gotten all of them killed.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership, I think the debate over it is yet another way for dems and reps to keep raping the people and pointing to truly false issues. The amount of people killed by our govt is way higher than anyone who kills someone with a gun.

[Tapate50]

And if he missed or the guy saw his gun, he may have gotten all of them killed.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership, I think the debate over it is yet another way for dems and reps to keep raping the people and pointing to truly false issues. The amount of people killed by our govt is way higher than anyone who kills someone with a gun.
They may have all been dead anyways...

See how that works?

[zitothebrave]

They may have all been dead anyways...

See how that works?

If they all were dead, he would have started shooting much earlier. Unless of course he is the dumbest criminal ever.

[sturg33]

I'm waiting for the story to be updated to find out how many innocent bystanders the good guy killed while bringing down the bad guy… Has to be in the double digits

[zitothebrave]

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/gary-indiana-social-club-shooting-245347061.html

Look someone who had a gun was involved with a robbery someone opened fire on him and people were caught in the crossfire.

That took me like 2 seconds to find. We can make strawmen arguments back and forth if you want.

[gilesfan]

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/gary-indiana-social-club-shooting-245347061.html

Look someone who had a gun was involved with a robbery someone opened fire on him and people were caught in the crossfire.

That took me like 2 seconds to find. We can make strawmen arguments back and forth if you want.


Please show where anyone was struck in the crossfire bc thats certainly not how the story reads. The story actually works against your point of robberies not involving gunfire.

"The incident unfolded at about 11:30 p.m. at the Safe & Sound Senior Citizens' Social Club, located at 2200 N. Broadway, in Gary, when a man entered and began firing. Officers responding to a call of shots fired entered the building and found patrons screaming and four people with gunshot wounds.
The alleged gunman, Kendell Reed from Chicago, was also wounded when someone inside the club retaliated."


Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/gary-indiana-social-club-shooting-245347061.html#ixzz2xY1Ou3EH
Follow us: @nbcchicago on Twitter | nbcchicago on Facebook

[Tapate50]

Please show where anyone was struck in the crossfire bc thats certainly not how the story reads. The story actually works against your point of robberies not involving gunfire.

"The incident unfolded at about 11:30 p.m. at the Safe & Sound Senior Citizens' Social Club, located at 2200 N. Broadway, in Gary, when a man entered and began firing. Officers responding to a call of shots fired entered the building and found patrons screaming and four people with gunshot wounds.
The alleged gunman, Kendell Reed from Chicago, was also wounded when someone inside the club retaliated."


Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/gary-indiana-social-club-shooting-245347061.html#ixzz2xY1Ou3EH
Follow us: @nbcchicago on Twitter | nbcchicago on Facebook

And its Chicago..they could have had those gunshot wounds before they even walked in that senior center.

[The Chosen One]

Voting and Gun Ownership are both constitutional rights. Why is it OK to ask for voter id but not ok to ask for background checks?

[sturg33]

Voting and Gun Ownership are both constitutional rights. Why is it OK to ask for voter id but not ok to ask for background checks?

I don't think it's ok to ask for voter ID, if you cared for my opinion

[The Chosen One]

I figured you wouldn't. Voting is mentioned 5 times in the constitution. Yet it's being pissed on more than the 2nd amendment.

[Krgrecw]

Sav, you have to show an ID to buy a gun, why shouldn't you have to show an ID to vote?

[zitothebrave]

Sav, you have to show an ID to buy a gun, why shouldn't you have to show an ID to vote?

Not true in all states.

[The Chosen One]

Owning a gun isn't one of the core principles of a democracy. I'd say voting is.

[Krgrecw]

Not true in all states.


It is true in all states

[Krgrecw]

Owning a gun isn't one of the core principles of a democracy. I'd say voting is.



And without guns we wouldn't have a democracy would we?

In every other facet of life ; buying a car, buying a house, applying for a job, getting a loan, etc you have to prove who you are. Why shouldn't that apply to voting?

[The Chosen One]

And without guns we wouldn't have a democracy would we?

In every other facet of life ; buying a car, buying a house, applying for a job, getting a loan, etc you have to prove who you are. Why shouldn't that apply to voting?

Those aren't constitutional rights.

We can have democracy without guns. Unless you're one of those that still thinks potus is going to round up everyone and place us in concentration camps.